TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and also appropriated Rs. 65,926/- paid by the assessee towards interest for delayed payment. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellant is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of pistons, piston rings etc. falling under Chapter Heading 8409 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. During the course of audit of the records of the appellant during April 2007 for the period 2004-05 to 2006-07, the Accountant General Audit Party made observation that the appellant was receiving management consultancy services from M/s Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd hereinafter referred to as (FMGIL) during the period f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that the impugned order is contrary to law. He also submitted that as per law, the service recipient is entitled to take credit of the service tax paid on input services immediately upon having paid the invoice of the service provider and that there is no requirement to await the actual payment of service tax by the service provider. He further submitted that for the delay in payment of service tax into the Govt account by the service provider, the appellant cannot be made liable. If at all any action had to be taken for the said delay, the department ought to have proceeded against the service provider. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the credit availed by the appellant who is the service receiver is irregular during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service provider before availment of the credit. If the service provider has not deposited the service tax with the department on due date, Revenue s remedy lies at the end of the service provider for recovery of service tax along with interest. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that penalty under Rule 15 cannot be imposed in respect of irregular availment of CENVAT Credit on input services as it constitute for the relevant period and for this he relied upon the decision in the case of Davangere Sugar Company Vs CCE Bangalore II [2011(267)ELT 384 (Tri-Bang)] wherein it has been held that the provisions of Rule 15(2) cannot be invoked as the issue was of credit on input services. On the other hand learned A.R.....