TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 11(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA) along with interest and equal penalty. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Titanium Dioxide, Sulphuric Acid and Potassium Titanate falling under heading Nos. 282300.10, 280700.10 and 284190.00 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA) and are availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on input and capital goods as well as service tax paid on input services. A show-cause notice dt. 01/08/2014 was issued to the appellant for recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit on input services amounting to Rs. 50,58,381/-. After following the due process of law, the Commissioner confirmed the proposal in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or repair of the factory is allowed as credit even if they are not an activity relating to business as long as the input service is able to satisfy the requirements of the definition of input service. for this submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2009(242) ELT 168 (Tri. Bom.)] ii. CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010-TIOL-745-MUM-ST] 4.2. He further submitted that the appellants had availed the credit of service tax paid for services received from M/s. Mecon ltd. for preparation of three pollution control plants including the ARP and at the time of availment of credit, there is no dispute that the said credit was taken correctly. He also submitted that the subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious financial crisis, the main plant can work at 45 tons per day production level and hence the ARP project was abandoned. However, all the equipments imported or procured for ARP were kept safely in the store of the company with necessary upkeep. The services rendered by M/s Mecon were discontinued in 2008 and the Government of Kerala Vide their Order dt. 01/03/2011 abandoned the ARP. Learned AR further submitted that the appellant suppressed the fact of abandoning the project which was noticed during the audit conducted by the Department in 2010-11. He also justified the invoking of the extended period of limitation on account of suppression by the appellant. The appellant never communicated the decision of the Government of Kerala dt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I find that the management consultancy service was taken for all the plants but one of the plant i.e. ARP was abandoned on 01/03/2011 and during the audit in 2010-11, an objection was raised by the Department that the appellant has availed irregular credit but thereafter no show-cause notice was issued till 01/08/2014, which is beyond the period of limitation of one year. Further i also find that the credit was availed and utilised in 2005-07 and it is not the case of the Revenue that the same was wrongly availed. Further I also find that the CENVAT credit once rightly availed is indefeasible and subsequent development of abandoning of plant will not make the appellant liable to reverse the CENVAT credit which was rightly availed by them. ....