2018 (2) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demand for interest and also imposed equal penalty under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services falling under the category of port services and is discharging the service tax from time to time. During the scrutiny of records and annual financial statement maintained by the appellant, it was observed that during the period 2008-09 and 2009-10, the appellant had availed cenvat credit on structural materials such as MS plates, beams, angles, channels etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which were used for civil construction and conveyor system. Thereafter ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble to pay interest and penalty. He further submitted that the Revenue has invoked extended period of limitation wrongly. For invoking extended period of limitation, there has to be suppression of facts or fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or contravention of any provision of law with intent to evade payment of tax whereas in the present case, the appellant reversed the wrongly availed credit before issue of show cause notice and also not utilized the same. He further submitted that since there was no suppression or fraud, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant. For this, he relied upon the decisions in the case of CCE vs. Jatti Motors Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (44) STR J69 (Kar.) and Lanco Industries Vs. CCE - 2012 (25) STR 206 (Tri.-B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en that while interpreting Rule 14 the Apex Court has clearly held that if the interpretation as placed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was to be accepted, the same would amount to permitting the word or between taken and utilized to be substituted by and . The Lordships therefore found that applying the principle of strict and liberal interpretation the same was not permissible. 13. In view of the clear pronouncement of law by the Apex Court, we find that the view taken by the learned Tribunal may be though correctly taken at that point of time, on the basis of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, would no longer be correct in view of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ind-S....