2019 (8) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vailing the benefit of CENVAT in respect of service tax paid on input services received, the output taxable services included exempted service i.e., international courier service, co-loading and export cargo. The department issued a show-cause notice dated 15.4.2008 for the period from April 2006 to March 2007 wherein it was alleged that the appellant was providing both taxable and exempted services as per Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and was required to maintain separate accounts of inputs and input services used for providing taxable and exempted services and if they do not maintain separate accounts they were required to utilize the CENVAT credit so availed to the extent of 20% of the tax liability. It was alleged that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o reversal Rule 6. The amount so reversed for the period in dispute was Rs. 11,37,010/- and the appellant also paid interest of Rs. 2,18,128/- vide challan dated 18.4.2009 and the factum of said reversal was informed to the department vide letter dated 29.10.2009. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority vide common order dated 28.4.2010 partly confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice but restricted the demand of CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs. 14,21,259/- for both the show-cause notices. The adjudicating authority also imposed equal penalty of Rs. 14,21,259/- under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 apart from demanding interest. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand of credit, the impugned order has actually proposed to recover the credit itself which is not tenable in law. He further submitted that when the appellant has reversed the credit, it is equivalent of not taking the credit as held by the apex court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires P. Ltd. vs. CCE: 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (SC). He further submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner in para 33.2 is contrary to the findings recorded in para 13 of the previous Order-in-Original wherein it was specifically recorded by the previous adjudicating authority that he had purportedly called for a report from the Additional Commissioner and the said officer has reported the calculation / quantification of Rs. 11,37,010/- which was a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eginning while filing the reply to the show-cause notice itself. Further, the appellant has reversed the amount of Rs. 11,37,010/- along with interest of Rs. 2,18,128/- and informed the department. The previous adjudicating authority had called for the report from the Additional Commissioner and the said officer reported the calculation of the quantification of Rs. 11,37,010/-. It was also confirmed by the internal audit of the LTU department as also the Superintendent. Besides this, the detailed calculation along with worksheets were submitted by the appellant vide its letter dated 29.10.2009 and the adjudicating authority has noted that the appellant has reversed the said amount along with interest. The previous authority after observing ....