TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit availment of Rs. 168.82 crores, ordered for recovery of Rs. 90,78 crores utilized by the appellant from the cenvat credit account and appropriated an amount of Rs. 47.63 crores paid by the appellant towards ineligible credit availed. He has also confirmed demands of interest on the above amounts apart from imposing equivalent amounts of penalties. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the demand for service tax liability of Rs. 134.97 crores, denied cenvat credit availment of Rs. 168.82 crores, ordered for recovery of Rs. 90.78 crores utilized by the appellant from the cenvat credit account and appropriated an amount of Rs. 47.63 crores paid by the appellant toward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to Rs. 39.09 crores. It is the contention of the appellant that since the cenvat credit taken has been reversed by the appellant, that would amount to non-availment of credit and the appellant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Hello Minerals Water Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2004 (174) ELT 422 (All.), the Tribunal's decisions in the case of B.G. Shirke Construction Tech. P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune - III reported in 2009 (13) STR 686, Khyati Trours & Travels vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2011 (24) STR 456 and B.G. Shirke Technology P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune - III reported in 2012 (27) STR 366. According to them, the tax liability, at best, after taking into account the eligible abatement under N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s prayed that stay be granted and the matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. 4. The learned special consultant appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. However, he fairly conceded that there cannot be double demands inasmuch as the credit availed is denied and the credit utilized which is already included in the credit availed, is once again confirmed. However, it is the submission that had the appellant produced all the requisite evidences before the adjudicating authority, such confirmation of demands twice would not have occurred and, therefore, it is his prayer that the impugned order be sustained and the appellant be put to terms. 5. We have carefully co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crores confirmed by the adjudicating authority, the appellant has reversed the credit taken on the inputs and input services and consequently the appellant would be entitled for the benefit of abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST. In a number of decisions, namely Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd., B.G. Shirke Technology P. Ltd. and Khyati Tours & Travels cited supra, it has been consistently held by this Tribunal as also by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that reversal of cenvat credit amounts to non-availment of credit and, therefore, the benefit of Notification 1/2006-ST cannot be denied. The adjudicating authority has not considered these decisions and has not given any finding as to why these decisions are inapplicable to the facts o....