2019 (8) TMI 1683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imposed under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2007 and whether the extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked in the show cause notice. 2. The brief facts are as follows:- 2.1 During the course of audit of records of the assessee, it was observed, by the team of Auditors from the office of the Principal Director of Audit (Central), Ahmedabad, Branch Office Rajasthan, Jaipur that the assessee have wrongly taken credit of Service Tax paid on Industrial and Civil Construction Service to the extent of Rs. 20,90,744/- during the period from January, 2013 to March, 2014. That Industrial and Civil Construction Service have been excluded from the definition of "input service" as provided under the provisions of Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notice of the department, this shows that the assessee has willfully suppressed the facts and wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on the services not covered under the definition of input service and therefore, the provisions of extended period, under Section 11A(4) are invokable in the instant case. 3. The show cause notice was issued demanding reversal of cenvat credit of Rs. 43,85,634/- with proposal to appropriate the amount already deposited/reversed amounting to Rs. 28,47,256/- and proposed to charge interest and to appropriate the amount already paid i.e. Rs. 4,29,736/- with further proposal to impose penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide ex parte order-in-original confirming ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant would have utilized the same. Accordingly, ld. Counsel prays for allowing their appeal on the ground of limitation for extended period and also for waiver of penalty in full. 7. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue has relied upon the impugned order reiterating the findings of the court below. He pointed out from para-8 of the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellant has not submitted copy of any contract for remaining service provided during the period. 8. Having considered the rival contentions and going through the admitted facts, I find that the issue is wholly interpretational in nature. The appellant has maintained proper records of their transactions and the credit t....