2017 (4) TMI 953

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For the Respondent ORDER The facts of the case are that appellants are a manufacturing unit. On verification of records, it appeared to the department that appellants had wrongly availed credit of service tax paid on security services during the period July 2012 to August 2013. For this belief, department relied upon Notfn No.30/2012-ST dt. 20.06.2012 which ordains that provider of said services....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sition of penalties under relevant provisions. These proposals were confirmed by the original authority and also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 12.07.2016. 2. Aggrieved, appellants are before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri N. Viswanathan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that tax liability though discharged 100% by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2) ELT 753 (Mad.) and held that when input duty paid that has gone into the process not disputed by Revenue manufacturer-appellant cannot be denied credit thereof. 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R supports the impugned order. He submits that since as per the notification, appellant is liable to pay 75% of service tax and service provider to pay 25% and unless that share has been discharged by appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e recipient, the said recipient cannot avail the credit thereof. The notification only lays down proportion of tax liability which service recipient and service provider are "liable to pay". However, that cannot be a bar to availment of the cenvat credit if cenvat credit that has been discharged in the activity involved and has also passed on / suffered by the service recipient-appellant. Rule 3 o....