TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 29 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). The appellant is also availing of the facility of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant availed Cenvat credit of tax paid on inputs, capital goods and input services, received and used in manufacturing process. However, such credit availed by the appellant could not be utilised and hence, the appellant applied for refund of such credit accumulated in the books of accounts. During the period from April, 2015 to March, 2017, filed 8 refund claims on quarterly basis involving total amount of claims at Rs. 4,08,15,675/-. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant proposing there in, rejection of claim on different grounds, which were repli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing any frontal action on the said credit would amount to contempt of lawful proceedings and will be usurping power by the Noticee. In such circumstances, the recording of credit balances in the GST account will be grossly illegal and incorrect, as the dispute still remains to be settled." The appellant being aggrieved by the observations of the adjudicating authority, they took re-credit subject to dispute being settled, as raised by the jurisdictional authority vide show cause dated 7.12.2016, carrying the matter before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal upholding the observations. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel points out that the said dispute as has been pointed out by Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue has got no connection with the availment of credit and cannot be considered to be a bar in availing the same. As such, by relying upon various precedent decisions, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. The issue is settled, we, by following the said decision of the Tribunal, hold that the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit of duty paid by the manufacturer supplier. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 2,78,19,091/- is set aside along with setting aside of penalty. 5. Further, we find that credit of Rs. 21,68,285/- in respect of the service tax paid by the appellant's head office, which is also registered as ISD, stands denied on the ground that such service tax was paid by the head office, on reverse charge basis, in terms of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credit to them, 7. The reliance by the ld. Advocate on the Board's Circular No. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8.8.2013 does not advance their case inasmuch as the said circular while clarifying as to whether an assessee would be entitled to the Cenvat credit of duty paid under VCES scheme, has observed that admissibility of such credit would be governed by the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is no clarification to the effect that the duty/tax paid under the said scheme would be admissible as a credit. It only clarifies that the Cenvat credit would be governed by the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. We have already examined the applicability of the said rules and have observed that the said rule deny availing the credit in respect of the ta....