TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 31.7.2015. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 having factories in and around 11 locations in various parts of the country. They are registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD) and are availing service tax credits on common input servicers received by them on courier services, telecommunication services, cargo handling services, manpower recruitment services and clearing and forwarding services and distributing the service tax cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant filed two appeal before the Commissioner (A), who vide the impugned order disposed of both the appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent and the entire demand is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the input services on which credit has been denied falls in the definition of 'input service' as provided in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 prior to its amendment dated 1.4.2011. He further submitted that the Event Management/O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and cannot be denied on the basis of a Notification issued by the Medical Council of India which has no legal basis. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.) * CCE vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar.) * CCE vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: 2017 (49) STR 261 (P&H) * Racold Thermo Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (42) STR 332 (Tri.-Mum.) * Delhi Automotive System P. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014 (36) STR 1089 (Tri.-Del.) * Gateway Terminals (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (39) STR 1027 (Tri.-Mum.) * IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014 (35) STR 384 (Tri.-Bang.) * Castrol India Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned counsel is that the entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation. The demand was confirmed for the period December 2008 to December 2011 and the show-cause notice dated 16.1.2014 which is beyond the normal period of one year. The Commissioner (A) has justified the invocation of longer period of limitation on the ground that the case was under Section 73(4) of the Finance Act, since they have suppressed the facts with intend to evade payment of duty. The learned counsel submitted that both the authorities have wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation as the appellant have not suppressed any material fact from the department and there is a bona fide dispute regarding the interpretation of law and it is a sett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CENVAT credit wrongly taken or erroneously refunded. - (1)(i) Where the CENVAT credit has been taken wrongly but not utilized, the same shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of output service, as the case may be, and the provisions of Section 11A of the Excise Act or Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), as the case may be, shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries; (ii) Where the CENVAT credit has been taken and utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same shall be recovered along with interest from the manufacturer or the provider of output service, as the case may be, and the provisions of Section 11A and....