2010 (11) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order].  - 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 C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n terms of Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re not liabe to pay service tax they paid service 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 admitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Accordingly, the appellant paid service tax and took 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 ....