2014 (10) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Demand of Rs. 18,90,324/- has been confirmed on the ground that they have utilized Cenvat credit to the extent of more than 20% of the tax payable in contravention of Rule 6(3)(C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The basis for this conclusion is that the appellant was providing services in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The lower adjud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was no demand at all. He submits that this fact has been taken note of and accepted by the original adjudicating authority in Paragraph 18 of his order. 3. I find that in these circumstances, the demand of Rs. 18,90,324 is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. 4. Second demand is Rs. 11,80,160/- which has arisen because the Cenvat credit taken of service tax pai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in this case, the sale and AMC cannot be said to be the result of composite contract. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the original adjudicating authority that the credit paid on sales commission is not admissible has to be upheld. However, at this stage learned C.A. submits that even the credit which was not taken by the appellant at all has also been included for the purpose of demand. ....