2015 (11) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of duty vide Notification No.3/2005. 2. During the period April 2005 to March 2009, the appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service and Manpower Recruitment Agency services and as per the Revenue, appellants utilized the same in relation to manufacture of both dutiable as well as exempted goods. As the appellants were not maintaining separate records of input service tax credit utilized for manufacture of both the types of final products, they were issued a show-cause notice dated 16.4.2009 proposing to confirm an amount of 10% of the value of the exempted final product, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules. 2.1 The appellant during the course of adjudicatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant and Shri K.T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. I find that admittedly the appellants have reversed the proportionate CENVAT credit in respect of GTA services used for the manufacture of dutiable as also the final product. The reliance by the lower authorities on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Nicolas Piramal (I) Ltd. (supra) may not be applicable inasmuch as the said case was dealing with availment of input credit whereas the present case relates to input services, in which case, it is difficult to maintain separate records. Further, the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Himalaya Drugs: 2011 (271) E.L.T. 350 (Kar.) and High Court of Madras in the case of ICMS Corporation Ltd.: 2015 (315....