2014 (12) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant availed CENVAT credit on the input service credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority denied the input service credit on the warranty services rendered by the dealers outside India holding that they were not input service as the service was rendered after the place of removal in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs. 81,12,228/- along with interest and penalty for the period January 2007 to December 2010. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the tax itself is not payable under reverse charge mechanism. It is submitted that in the present case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the adjudication order. He submits that credit was denied, not only on the ground that services are post-manufacturing activity, but also the services were rendered abroad. He strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of PMP Auto Components (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (284) ELT 536. He further submits that the submission of the learned counsel that tax itself is not payable cannot be considered in the instant show-cause notice issued by the Department for denial of CENVAT credit. This issue has no relation with the present case, as they have not filed any refund claim. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that CENVAT credit was denied mainly on the ground that services are post-manufact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le as 'input credit' under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service. 5. On perusal of the above circular, it is clear that the Board has clarified that input service credit is eligible in respect of payment of service tax under Section 66A. It appears that the said circular was not placed in the case of PMP Auto Components (P) Ltd. (supra). We also find force in the submission of the learned counsel regarding the limitation. it is noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alumayer India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed that when the position in law has been settled only as a result of decision of Larger....