TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he demand to the extent of credit availed. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, 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 manufacture of pre-fabricated buildings (falling under Chapter Heading 7308/1000 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985). They also undertook erection, commissioning and installation of these pre-fabricated buildings and were registered with the erstwhile Bangalore Service Tax commissionerate vide Service Tax Registration No.AANFR2719JSD002 for providing such 'construction services'. The records of the appellant covering the period from December 2013 to June 2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the impugned order has confirmed the demand towards reversal of CENVAT credit at 6% of the exempted turnover without giving the option to the appellant to reverse the credit as per the formula in Rule 6(3A). he further submitted that the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) is only directory and not mandatory. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Cranes and Structural Engineers Vs. CCE [2017(347) ELT 112 (Tri. Bang)] wherein the Tribunal has held that the condition in Rule 6(3A) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellant cited supra wherein it has been consistently held that the assessee has an option to reverse the credit as per the formula prescribed in Rule 6(3A) and if the assessee has not exercised the option prior to the availment of credit then the same can be exercised subsequently. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cranes and Structural Engineers has considered the same issue and held in para 4.1 as under:- 4.1 On analysis of Rule 6(3A), I find that while exercisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the Revenue is not legal and proper. Moreover, the demand raised by the Revenue is also hit by limitation as the appellant reversed the pro rata credit with interest on 31- 7-2010 itself and communicated to the Department whereas the show cause notice was issued only on 13-3-2012 which is beyond the period of one year and the allegation of the Department regarding suppression of fact is also not tenable because the appellant has disclosed these facts in their periodical ER1 returns filed by them. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable on merit as well as on limitation and therefore, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any. Further I find that in the case....