Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether cenvat credit of service tax paid by a group unit on design and drawing services can be availed by the manufacturing unit and whether the demand, interest and penalties based on alleged suppression and invocation of extended period of limitation are sustainable.
Analysis: The facts show service tax was discharged by the Pune unit on invoices expressly stating the services were to be used as input service by the Bangalore manufacturing unit; the Pune unit did not avail cenvat credit; the Bangalore unit availed cenvat credit, recorded the same in ER-1 returns and sent a letter dated 23.03.2009 informing the department of such availment; the adjudicating authority rejected the letter and ER-1 entries as insufficient and invoked extended limitation and penalties for alleged suppression. The available records invoices, ER-1 return entries and the intimation letter demonstrate disclosure of the transactions and that the cost of design was amortized into the value of dutiable products.
Conclusion: The cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the service tax paid by the Pune unit is valid and the findings imposing demand, interest and penalties and invoking the extended period of limitation are not sustainable; the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.