TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintenance commission, warranty support charges and commission towards installation and commissioning and warranty services treating all these services as input services. Show-cause notice was issued denying them the service tax credit availed on the above-mentioned services. The adjudicating authority vide his Order-in-Original held that the credit taken is irregular and confirmed the demanded amount and appropriated the amount already paid. The adjudicating authority has also demanded interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation but upheld the Order-in-Orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....propriate interest on the wrongly taken Cenvat credit to be determined in de novo proceedings." (b) With respect to the penalty aspect, as explained above the assessee has taken the credit wrongly. Had the department not gone into the depth, the fact of suppression with an intention to evade payment of duty would not have been noticed. Hence, in such circumstances, penalty is very much imposable under rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (c) In view of the above, it appears that the [Order-in-Appeal No. 86/2008 (H-III)CE, dated 28-11-2008] passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) in the case of Cygnus Micro Systems (P.) Ltd., is not proper and legal. The Committee, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that the facts were noticed by the department only on verification of records and that the appellants had availed double benefit by taking credit as well as collecting the amounts from their buyers. The reasoning given by the adjudicating authority is not correct. He has not disputed either the details furnished in the ER-1 returns or the fact of correspondence made with the Range Office. Further the show-cause notice did not mention anything about the double benefit availed by the appellants. Thus, the demand is to be restricted to normal period of one year. However, it is seen that the appellants have already paid the disputed amount which shows their bona fides. When there is no suppression of fact imposition of penalty under rule 15 ....