TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration on the point of limitation and penalty. Accordingly, we have heard the learned advocate Shri Willingdon Christian, appearing for the appellant and Shri R.S. Sangia, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant, who is holding service tax registration as "Input service Distributor" availed the benefit of Cenvat Credit in respect of input services such as maintenance and repairs services, security services etc. used at the site of installation of their Wind Turbine Generators (WTG) for generating electricity. The Cenvat Credit availed in respect of such input services were being distributed to their manufacturing unit located at Nandesari for utilizing the same towards payment of duty on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which stand relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order, has observed that as the issue involved is of legal interpretation, no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant and as such, the penalty stand set aside. He submits that the basis for invocation of longer period and for imposition of penalty are identical. In both cases, mala fide on the part of the assessee is required to be established. As such, the observations made by the Tribunal in case of Rajhans Metals (P) Ltd. was applicable so as to hold non-availability of longer period of limitation. Inasmuch as the Tribunal in case of Rajhans Metals (P) Ltd. has observed that the issue is of legal interpretation and does not call for any imposition of penalty, by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to ensure correct availment of Cenvat Credit in accordance with the Rules which the appellants have failed to honour. The wrong availment of credit came to light only after it was detected by the Department and investigated. In view of the above, I hold that the larger period of limitation under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been correctly invoked in the present case and the show cause cum demand notice invoking the extended period is in order. Accordingly, the appellants are liable to pay the demand of Rs. 5,40,148/- along with interest. For the said reasons, the appellants are also liable to penalty equal to the wrongly availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 5,40,148/- under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 6. As is s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of input services availed at the site of generators and were using same for clearance of the goods at the factory situated away from the generator site. This fact becomes clear from the Tribunal's decision in case of Rajhans Metals Pvt. Ltd. and other judgment in case of Atul Auto Ltd. It is in the light of the decision of the Tribunal that such availment of service was held to be not admissible. Can under these circumstances, the appellant be held guilty of any suppression or mis-statement so as to invoke longer period. In fact, the Tribunal, while deciding the issue on merit against the appellant in case of Rajhans Metals Pvt. Ltd., has itself observed that the issue involved is of legal interpretation of the provisions and as such....