TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1984. They had availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the service provider in relation to the input service viz. Man-power supply service which were used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods in the factory during the period July 2012 to March 2014. Alleging that as per Notification 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the appellant was required to pay 75% of the Service tax amount as service recipient whereas, the service provider was required to pay 25% of the service tax liability, instead, since the service provider had paid the entire service tax amount(100%), therefore, the appellant are not eligible to avail credit of the service tax p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid Notification 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 between the service provider and the service receiver has nothing to do with availing/eligibility of credit by the service recipient. Further, referring to the amended Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Ld. Advocate has submitted that the proviso itself prescribes the condition to avail credit of the service tax paid on reverse charge mechanism mentioning that only after the service tax amount paid or payable is indicated in an invoice or bill in accordance with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, then only credit could be admissible. Since in the present case, the entire amount of service tax paid has been indicated in the invoice, therefore, they are eligible to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal product or in providing taxable service of the excise duty specified in First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act. Insofar as the respondent is concerned, he had purchased the inputs and utilised the same for manufacture of a final product. Such goods were duty paid. Rules 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, thus would enable him to avail the Cenvat credit. It is a different thing that the supplier of the goods to the respondent paid excise duty on such product under mistaken belief. In law as declared by the Supreme Court in case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra), no duty was payable on such product. Strictly speaking therefore, such amount deposited by the original manufacturer would not....