TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and recovery of the same came to be upheld. 2. Heard Shri Vinay Kansara, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. Rajaraman, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue. After hearing both sides, I find that the only issue that has to be decided is: whether the disallowance of credit in the hands of the appellant was correct or not? 3. Facts are not in dispute; the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and are availing credit of inputs and capital goods, input services and Input Service Distributor ('ISD' for short) credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules ('CCR' for short), 2004. The Head Office of the appellant is located in Thane, which is registered for ISD, for the distribution of ISD credit. There was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e distribution of credit was not done to Head Office since the entire tax was paid in cash every time rather than paying through CENVAT Credit and that, in any event, the Show Cause Notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation and therefore, the proposed recovery was not proper. The appellant also relied on the following decisions:- (i) M/s. Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2018-VIL-60-BOM-CE]; (ii) M/s. Rallis India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [2016-VIL-459-CESTAT-MUM-CE]; (iii) M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I [2017-VIL-118-CESTAT-MUM-ST]; and (iv) M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the said unit which chose to distribute (to which Rule 7 of the CCR applies) alleging that the distribution by the ISD was wrong. There is also nothing brought out on record if the appellant, being a recipient unit, had any role or influence in the manner of distribution so that a case of wilful suppression with an intention to evade payment of duty, etc., could be justified. When the appellant took consistent stand inter alia that its Head office-ISD unit was regularly filing its ER-1 return, that the service provider unit at Head Office had Service Tax liability every year, which was paid in cash and that the entire tax liability was paid in cash every year rather than paying through the CENVAT Credit, the lower authorities have not den....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of CESTAT Mumbai [2019 (366) E.L.T. 624 (Bom.)], has upheld the above order of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Court has also looked into the amended Rule 7 of the CCR. 8. Further, I also find that in the following cases, it has been held that recovery / demand cannot be raised at the recipient's end:- (i) M/s. V.G. Steel Industry v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2011 (271) E.L.T. 508 (P & H)]; (ii) M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chennai [2019-TIOL-2525-CESTAT-MAD] 9. It is also the settled position of law that the Show Cause Notice in the case on hand has been served beyond the normal period, for which the only allegation levelled is wilful suppression with an inte....