2020 (3) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sultant for the appellant. Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the respondent ORDER PER: MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No. 37/2011 (MP), dated 20.06.2011. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Sravan Shipping Services are registered with the Service Tax Department for rendering services under the heads "Port S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on and inventory of input services meant for the two types of output services. The appellant had not maintained separate records. As per Rule 3(2) of Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002, if the provider of output service opts not to maintain separate accounts, he shall utilise credit only to the extent of 35% of service tax payable up to September 2004. After September 2004, in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing due process, the Ld. Commissioner, by the impugned order, confirmed an amount of Rs. 55,43,101/- as irregularly availed CENVAT Credit utilised by the assessee. She also confirmed the demand of interest on this amount and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 of CCR 2004, read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 5. Ld. Consultant for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Credit. The appellants were not barred on taking CENVAT Credit and subsequently utilised it. As far as the period after 01.04.2008 is concerned, there is no restriction on utilising the CENVAT Credit to 8% of the value of services as alleged and demanded in the show cause notice. After 01.04.2008, if separate records were not maintained, the assessee had to pay an amount equal to 8% of the value ....