TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar issue, the Commissioner(Appeals) vide OIA No.60-61/2013 dt. 07/03/2013 disposed of the appeal filed by the party and the Department against Order-in-Original No.136/201 1 dt. 19/12/2011. Against the said Order-in-Appeal, both the Department and the party have filed the following appeals before the Tribunal. Sl. No. Appeal No. OIA Nos. Filed by Present position 1. E/26512/2013 No.34-37/2013 Assessee Disposed of vide Fihal order No.2209522096/2015 dt. 29/10/2015 2. E/26515/2013 No.34-37/2013 Department Present appeal 3. E/26522/2013 No.34-37/2013 Assessee Present appeal 4. E/26513/2013 No.60-61/2013 Assessee Disposed of vide Final Order No.22095-22096/2015 Dt. 29/10/2015 5. E/26598/2013 No.60-61/2013 Department Present appeal Out of the 5 appeals filed by the party and the Department as shown in the table, two appeals of the party have been disposed vide Final Order dt. 29/10/2015 by the Tribunal. The remaining three appeals are being disposed of by now as the same could not be disposed of earlier vide order dt. 29/10/2015. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Fosroc Chemicals India (P) Ltd. engag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exclusion of another unit. He also submitted that the show-cause notices proceeded on wrong interpretation to Rule 7(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs. ECOF Industries Pvt Ltd. [2011(271) ELT 58 (Kar.)] wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that an Input service Distributor can distribute the credit of service tax to a unit of their choice and there is no requirement that the services received by the ISD should have actually been received in manufacturing unit The learned consultant further submitted that the appellant has not committed an act of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation or willful misstatement with a view to evade service tax as the appellant was under a bona fide belief that it can distribute the service tax credit to units at Kuluvananalli and Ankleshwar. Under these circumstances, invocation of larger period of limitation is not tenable in view of the following decisions:- i. Center for Development of Advance Computing Vs. CCE [2002(141) ELT 6 (SC)] ii. Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs. CCE [2005(188) ELT 251 (SC)] 5. He further submitted that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all the submissions of the assessee which have been raised in the present appeals also by the assessee as well as by the Department. Further I also find that the issues which are before this Tribunal in the present appeals have already been considered in the earlier appeals decided by the Tribunal and therefore I find nothing new to be considered in the present appeals. It is also a fact that the assessee has not challenged the order of the Tribunal dt. 29/10/2015 vide which the Tribunal has disposed of two appeals of the appellant/assessee. Therefore by following the judicial discipline, I dispose of the appeal of the assessee on the same terms and condition vide which the earlier appeals were disposed of. Here it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant findings contained in para 6 to 9 of the said decision of Tribunal. 6. However, I find no force in the above plea of the appellant. In terms of Rule 7(b), the service tax attributable to service used in a unit 'exclusively' engaged' in the manufacture of exempted goods is not available. The expression 'exclusively' appearing in the said Rule relates to the unit and not to the service tax. The unit has to be exclusi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with intention to evade payment of duty, then, the manufacturer shall also be liable to pay penalty in terms of the provisions of section 11AC of the Excise Act. (3) If any person takes Cenvat credit in respect of input services, wrongly or in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any input service, then, such person, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to an amount not exceeding two thousand rupees. (4) In c case, where the Cenvat credit in respect of input services has been taken or utilised wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the finance Act, or of the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of service tax, then the provider of output service shall also be liable to pay penalty in terms of the provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act. (5) any order under sub-rule (I), sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3), or sub-rule (4) shall be issued by the Central Excise Officer following the principles of natural justice." He submits that the said rules were amended with effect from 27-2-2010 and amended provisions read as under :- "Confiscation ....