TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise Act read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules and also confirmed the payment of interest under Section 11AB and also imposed equal penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act by denying the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Forwarding and Cargo Handling Service and Repair and Maintenance of ETP. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical except in appeal No.E/20023/2018, there is an additional issue of denial of CENVAT credit of repair and maintenance of ETP amounting to Rs. 35,535/-, therefore, all the appeals are taken together for the purpose of discussion and disposal. 2. The details of all the four appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period involved SCN Date OIO NO. & Da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the manufacture and therefore, are eligible input service. The appellants have also contested the invocation of longer period of limitation and imposition of penalty on the ground that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Initially, the original authority confirmed the demand of various services but the Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order has only confirmed the demand of irregular CENVAT credit in respect of two services Forwarding and Cargo Handling service and Repair and Maintenance of ETP. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., then the appellant shall be entitled to refund of the amount of service tax paid in terms of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012 and Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended vide Notification No.3/2008-ST dated 19.2.2008. it is her further submission that the entire issue is revenue neutral as if the appellant had not claimed credit, they will be entitled to refund. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: • Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-IV: 2014 (36) STR 672 (Tri.-Del.) • Monarch Catalyst Pvt. LTd. vs. CCE, Thane-I: 2016 (41) STR 904 (Tri.-Mum.) • Cap & Seal (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST: 2018 (15) GSTL 74 (Tri.-Del.) • CCE & Cus. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department that the appellants have not disclosed the credit availment in their accounts or in ER-1 returns. She also submitted that it is a settled law that when the demand is based on audit objection, the extended period is not invokable and also that suppression cannot be alleged when the matter involves interpretation of legal provisions. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: • CCE & ST, Tirupathi vs. Sri Sai Sindu Industries: 2017 (49) STR 84 (Tri.-Hyd.) • CCE vs. Dynamic Industries Ltd.: 2014 (307) ELT 15 (Guj.) • Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (339) ELT 127 (Tri.-Hyd.) • Ispat Industries Ltd. s. CCE: 2006 (199) ELT 509 (Tri.-Mum.) • Cam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rightly rejected the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Forwarding and Cargo Handling service. She further submitted that these charges were for freight for transit of goods from the port of loading to port of discharge i.e., from Indian Port/ICD to the destination Port abroad. She also submitted that in the case of exports, the place of removal is the port of shipment and the CENVAT credit is admissible up to the place of removal as per the definition of input services and the credit of freight and insurance charges beyond the place of removal is not admissible. She also submitted that as far as repair and maintenance of ETP plant is concerned, the appellants have not produced the bills wherein service tax has been charged. She further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt not the customers' premises as claimed by the appellant and the Commissioner (A) has rightly held and demanded the service tax. As far as invoking the extended period of limitation in appeal No. E/20023/2018 is concerned since the appellant has not concealed any facts from the department with an intent to evade payment of duty and they have regularly filed the ER-1 returns disclosing the availment of credit and the demand was raised on the basis of audit objection. In my view the extended period cannot be invoked in such circumstances and therefore, in appeal No.E/20023/2018, the demand is confirmed for the normal period of limitation of one year and the demand for the period June 2009 to May 2013 is barred by limitation. 7.1 Further,....