TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent was in the process of establishing another Greenfield Foundry near Hyderabad and Low Pressure Die and Gravity Casting (Aluminum) unit at Sriperumbudur. ii. A show cause notice No. 18/2009 in CA No.V/15/73/37/09-ADJ dated 27.08.2009 was issued to the Respondent as to why the credit of service tax availed and utilized to the tune of Rs. 14,74,618/- should not be demanded from them besides proposal for penalty and interest. The reason for the demand of the service tax credit is that the Respondent had in order to meet the increased domestic and international demands wanted to establish two units, one near Hyderabad and the other at Sriperumbudur. For the funding of these proposed units, the Respondent had issued GDRs (Global Deposito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business expenditure as per Income Tax Act, 1961, then such service will have to be considered as payment for activity relating to business. They had prayed for non imposition of penalty. iv. After affording an opportunity of hearing the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand for the reason that an inclusive definition of input service is not wide enough to cover anything remotely connected with manufacture and had imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC besides the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2000/- under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. V. An appeal against this order was filed and after framing the issue which is as follow: The issue to be decided in this case is whether the appellant (Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem and therefore inadmissible; that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sundaram Brake Linings is in favour of the Department; that in the instant case, the Respondent has taken credit which has no relevance to their manufacturing activity; that the burden of proof regarding admissibility of credit lies on the manufacturer; the reliance on the Tribunal rulings in the case of Ambika Forgings and Aditya Birla are on entirely different facts and prayed for setting aside the impugned order and restore the order in original passed by the Joint Commissioner for the reasons stated above. vii. The Respondent assessee has filed a cross objection which is numbered as E/CO/5/12 since this is only a counter to the Revenue's appeal; it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Limited (supra). Though the payment was made for establishing green field foundry near Hyderabad and Sriperumbudur, the payment was made by the Respondent from their Ennore Unit and the credit was availed by the very same Ennore Unit. It is strange that when the payment from the Ennore Unit has been accepted by the Department, the denial of credit by the Department is not understandable. More so, in this case the payment of service tax is not denied by the Department. The finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the onus is on the department to seek a clarification or verify the details submitted by the appellants in their ER-I returns, cannot be faulted and the further finding that the proviso ....