AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their guests and also rent out their premises for various functions, conference, wedding etc. They are also having restaurant in their premises and are also having a club on membership basis. The dispute in the present appeal, covering the period May 2011 to March 2012, is with reference to the abatement claim by the appellant under Notification 1/2006-ST dated 01/03/2006. One of the conditions stipulated in the said notification is that to avail the abatement, Cenvat credit on input services should not have been availed. As they availed credit and also availed the abatement under the said notification, proceedings were initiated to deny the abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST and to confirm differential service tax liability consequent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner reported in 2016 - TIOL - 3081 - CESTAT - DEL. ; and (g) Old World Hospitality Limited vs. Commissioner reported in 2017 - VIL - 97 - CESTAT - DEL - ST. 3. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that subsequent reversal of Cenvat credit, already availed by the appellant, cannot form basis for availing the abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Hind Lamps Ltd. vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 237 (Tr. - Del.). 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. Admittedly, the appellants availed Cenvat credit on input services and the same was barred when the claim for abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST is made by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and deposited the same, they became entitled to the benefit of Notification. The Tribunal further found that subsequent reversal of credit even after utilization of the same and clearance of the final product will relate to a situation as if no credit was ever availed, and Tribunal on finding of fact found that the respondent is entitled to full waiver. 9. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. (supra), had taken into consideration the question as to whether manufacturer can be treated as not having taken credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of any product even though it was originally taken but subsequently reversed, and held that the Revenue was not justified in holding a different view that reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eady been taken in accordance with Rule 57A. Once appropriate entries have been made in the register, there is no rule under which the process could be reversed. It is true that the assessee has not maintained separate accounts or segregated the inputs utilised for manufacture of dutiable goods and duty free goods, as should have been done. But, the Court's attention was drawn to the departmental circular according to which in a case where the manufacturer produces dutiable final products and also final goods which are exempt from duty and it is not reasonably possible to segregate inputs utilised in manufacture of the dutiable final products from the final products which are exempt from duty. Based on this, the Court held that the manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and distinguished by the Tribunal in Punj Lloyd Limited vs. CCE & ST, Rohtak reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1028 (Tri. - Del.). The Tribunal observed as below :- "5. As regards the eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. after reversal of the Cenvat credit taken on input services along with interest, it needs to be appreciated that in the Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. there was no bar against taking Cenvat credit of input services. When the said notification was superseded by Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. an additional condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit on input services was also introduced. It is thus possible that initially this may have escaped the attention of the appellant. No prudent person would take th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in the case of Nicholas Piramal (supra) cited by the ld. Departmental Representative was with regard to the interpretation of Rule 57C and Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence has no direct applicability to the issue at hand. The CESTAT judgment in the case of Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers-(supra) cited by ld. Departmental Representative was in relation to Service Tax liability of main contractor vis-a-vis sub- contractor and hence is not germane to the issue at hand. As regards the other judgment Dilip Chhabria Designs [2015-TIOL-851-HC-Mum-CX = 2015 (323) E.L.T. 565 (Bom.)], cited by Revenue to distinguish the judgment in the case of Hello Minerals (supra), we find that the facts in that c....