2018 (8) TMI 1468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lants are engaged in providing airport services. During the course of audit of the records for the period October 2013 to March 2015, it was observed that the appellant had identified the non-usable inventory valued at Rs,5859085/- from the stock and had made provision for write-off of the same in their book of accounts. The total credit availed on the provisions for written off inventory was arrived at Rs. 7,95,153/- and it appeared that the said amount is recoverable from the appellant in terms of provision of Rule 14(1)(ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, it appeared that the appellant is liable to pay interest under Section 75 and also liable for penalty under Rule 15(3) read with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed order is contrary to the binding judicial precedents of the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka. He further submitted that as soon as the audit pointed out the mistake, they reversed the amount of Rs. 7,95,153/- during the month of February, 2016 and passed a reversal entry in the CENVAT register and reversed the wrongly availed CENVAT credit and the same was disclosed in the Service Tax returns filed for the period 10/2015 to 3/2016. He further submitted that the reversal of the said amount was intimated to the service tax audit authorities vide e-mail dated 1.3.2016 along with the CENVAT register for February 2016. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has observed that the reversal has not been shown....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CE, Noida: 2014 (300) ELT 451 (Tri.-Del.) affirmed in Accurate Chemicals Industries vs. UOI: 2015 (324) ELT 453 (All.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have reversed the CENVAT credit availed on being pointed out by the audit and this fact has been admitted even in the show-cause notice itself. Further, in Order-in-Original also, it has been noted that the assessee has reversed the service tax credit of Rs. 7,95,153/- vide CENVAT register document No.100116412 dated 23.2.2016. Further, I find that the appellant has also submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate which is on recor....