2017 (5) TMI 1296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the relevant period i.e. after 10.9.2004. They availed CENVAT credit on the input services namely, insurance service for which the Policy commenced with effect from 1.7.2004 to 30.6.2005, 6.8.2004 to 5.8.2005, 28.8.2004 to 27.8.2005 and 11.8.2004 to 10.8.2005, since the appellants had availed proportionate credit of the premium paid under invoice/bill raised prior to 10.9.2004, alleging that such proportionate credit is not admissible, show cause notice was issued on 18.3.2011 for appropriation of the credit already reversed and recovery of interest with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the credit already reversed was appropriated and the interest on the said amount was directed to be paid with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal taking into consideration the facts upheld the extended period of limitation. Hence, the said ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and rightly followed by the ld. Commisisoner (Appeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I agree with the contention of the ld. A.R. for the Revenue that Rule 9(i)(f) deals with the document and accounts required for availing CENVAT credit, and this rule was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal in G.H.C.L. Ltd. (supra); whereas considering the said Rule in Ester Industries Ltd., this Tribunal observed as follows: "6. I have considered arguments on both sides. This is a case where credit is taken contrary to provisions in Rule 9(1)(f) of Cenvat C....