2018 (9) TMI 1516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....clerical error in the presentation of the amounts by the appellant and whether the penalties imposed under Sections 70, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act and Rule 15(3) of CCR have been rightly imposed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in providing 'cable operator services' and space or time selling service for advertisements. Appellants charged and collected service tax and discharged the liability, mainly through Cenvat Credit. Show Cause Notice date 20.10.2015 was issued for the extended period of limitation for the period from 2010-11 to 2013-14 proposing the demand of service tax Rs. 2,14,39,834/- on forward charge basis including Rs. 7,411/- on reverse charge basis on legal services to disallow Cenvat Credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re is no delay in taking the credit. (iv) Even otherwise, the time limit for taking the credit was inserted w.e.f. 06.08.2014 and it cannot be applied to the invoices issued earlier to 06.08.2014. (v) Appellants case is covered by following decisions:- - CCE vs. Ram Swarup Electricals Ltd. reported at 2007 (217) ELT 12 - Industrial Cables vs. CCE reported at 2009 (236) ELT 658. - Bharat Wagon & Engg. Co. Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 2001 (131) ELT 681. - Ajay Industrial Corporation vs. CCE reported at 2002 (147) ELT 786. - ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 2003 (158) ELT 406 (SC). B. The Commissioner has confirmed demand of Rs. 2,14,39,834/-. Appellants in its defe....