TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whereunder the cenvat credit of Rs. 2,15,541/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only) was disallowed and the said demand of cenvat credit was held recoverable along with interest and an equal mount of penalty was also imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944.The period of dispute is from 2005-06 to 2009-10. 2. The subject matter concerns with the cenvat credit of service tax (along with education cess and secondary and higher education cess) totalling to Rs. 13,60,308/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Three Hundred and Eight only) availed on Travel Services during the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10. The Revenue's initial contention was tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit taken on Travel Services is related to the manufacturing activity of the appellant and they are entitled to take the cenvat credit for the same. (ii) In case of cenvat credit taken for the part amount of recoveries made from the employees concerning Travel Services, it is pleaded that Larger Bench of CESTAT in the decision of CCE, Mumbai-V Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (Tri.-LB) in the case of Outdoor Catering Service has held that credit of tax on these taxable services is allowed, even where the cost of food is partly borne by the employees, i.e where Catering Services are providing subsidised food to the employees/staff. When Larger Bench of the Tribunal of the CESTAT allowed cenvat credit in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be sustained in their case. He further states that that matter got finality only by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) where it was held that cenvat credit was not admissible to the manufacturer on the part of the service tax borne by the workers i.e. the demand for the reversal of service tax from the appellants in respect of the employees contribution towards catering/traveling will be sustainable against the assessee and no cenvat for the service tax paid on such amount will be allowed as cenvat credit to the manufacturer/assessee. 4. The Revenue has been represented by learned AR, Shri Pakshi Rajan, who has inter alia pleaded as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant. The Revenue has not submitted any kind of evidence to indicate suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Therefore, this demand for recovery of cenvat credit beyond the normal period of one year cannot be sustained. 6.1. Considering the facts on record, the conclusion drawn is that the appellant's action of taking cenvat credit even on the part amount, which was recovered from the employees in case of facility of travel to and fro, is only a bonafide action; no malafides cannot be attached to the said action of taking cenvat credit. In this regard the support is taken from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur reported in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orized beyond the normal period of one year from the relevant date. 6.3. It is noticed that the Order-in-Original has imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is quoted below: "Rule 15. Confiscation and penalty (1) (2) In a case, where, the cenvat credit in respect of input or capital goods has been taken or utilized wrongly on account of fraud, willful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Excise Act or the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty, then, the manufacturer shall also be liable to pay penalty in te....