TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....April 2008 was dropped vide order-in-original no. 10/Commr/M-II/2011 dated 29th November 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II leading to review of the order, now impugned for us, by the competent Committee of Chief Commissioners under section 35E(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. In the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the credit of service tax included in the billings of sub-contractor of the respondent did not lie within the meaning of rule 2(l)(ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and that the said services had not been used directly, or indirectly, in, or in relation to, the manufacture carried out by the assessee. It is also contended that the adjudicating authority had failed to verify the returns prescribed under Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that bind the Tribunal as well as the adjudicating authority. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in SS Engineers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I [2015 (317) ELT 597 (Tri-Mumbai)] to demonstrate that the principle espoused in the ground of appeal on cross-utilisation is not contemplated in law. 5. We find that the controversy on cross-utilising of credit by manufacturers as providers of service stands settled by the decision in re SS Engineers which has held that '5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the Cenvat Credit Rules. We find that Rule 2 defines input, input services, capital goods etc. Before availing Cenvat credit, a manufacturer or service provider has to satisfy the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I v. SS Engineers [2016 (42) STR 3 (Bom)], dismissing the appeal of Revenue, has held that '3. Ordinarily an interpretation of a rule and in the light of a substantive legislation on Central Excise and Service Tax, would have raised a substantial question of law. However, we find that the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the credit is admissible during the course of manufacture of the final product of duty paid on inputs as well as service tax on the input service availed of. While availing of that credit, the cross utilization is not ruled out, leave alone barred or prohibited. That is how Cenvat Credit Rules have been analyzed. Rule 3(1) of the Rules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. In such circumstances, the cross utilization of credit on goods and services being not covered by any restrictive provision, leave alone any prohibition or embargo, the Tribunal's order does not call for any interference. The interpretation placed on the Rule is a probable and a possible view. That cannot be termed as perverse. Further, there is no revenue deficit much less any loss. Hence, we do not think that the appeal deserves to be entertained. It does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.' 6. Though it was grossly improper on the part of t....