TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder]. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the show cause notice was served on the appellant to recover cenvat credit in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and to impose penalty in terms of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The allegation against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was imposed. The same was upheld by the lower appellate authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the appeal is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax prior to 1-1-2005 and the period involved in this case also is prior to 1-1-2005. They have paid ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce tax and took credit of service tax which they cannot do so. The appellant is not entitled for cenvat credit as they are not liable to pay service tax on the service and hence lower appellate authority disallowed the cenvat credit. Accordingly the impugned order is to be upheld. 5. Heard and considered. 6. In this case it is admitted fact that during the impugned period, the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k cenvat credit immediately. In the case of Aditya Cement (supra), this Tribunal has held that prior to 1-1-2005 the service receiver was not liable to pay service tax for the service received from a non-resident service provider and the government cannot keep with its amount that is not due to it. In this case also the appellant is not liable to service tax on the service availed prior to 1-1-200....