TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e providing short term accommodation to 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 differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.) ; (f) Uniworth Limited vs. Commissioner 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he extent of Rs. 2,06,541/- along with interest of Rs. 17,093/- and once they reversed the total credit 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er wires without payment of duty since credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of copper wire had already 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we note that the Tribunal was examining the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said decision was examined 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 serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mary adjudication. Seen in this light the distinguishing effort by CESTAT in the case of Hind Lamps (supra) fails to be convincing. The Bombay High Court judgment 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....