TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 as applicable during the relevant period. The Anti-evasion Branch of Central Excise Division, Kota, gathered an intelligence that the appellant have availed Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and has simultaneously claimed 75% abatement in value of service provided, in terms of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, as amended, and has filed ST-3 Return for the Half Year ending on March, 2011 on 24.04.2011 by showing utilization of the Cenvat credit for payment of a part amount out of the total due amount of Service tax to be paid. However, on inquiring, telephonically, by the said officers the appellant filed revised ST-3 Return on 14.06.2011 showing all paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ider has once taken and utilised the CENVAT Credit on input/input service, irrespective the same was subsequently reversed and was paid in cash subsequently and filed revised return was also within prescribed time period. (ii) We observe that Rule 7B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 has been framed with an intent to give an opportunity to any assessee to correct a mistake or omission, if any, occurred. Rule 7B reads as follows: "Rule 7B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 reads as under: (1) An assessee may submit a revised return, in Form ST- 3, in triplicate, to correct a mistake or omission, within a period of ninety days from the date of submission of the return under rule 7 (2) An assessee who has filed the annual referred to in sub-rule (3A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2006-ST an additional condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit on input services was also introduced. It is thus possible that initially this may have escaped the attention of the appellant. No prudent person would take the risk of being saddled with a demand of almost Rs. 14 crores merely for input service credit of just above Rs. 32 lakhs. As regards the possible argument that there is no equity in taxation and exemption Notifications have to be construed strictly, suffice to say that in the case of Hello Minerals (supra) the Allahabad High Court has clearly held as under:- "18. In view of the above decision we are of the opinion that reversal of Modvat credit amounts to non-taking of credit on the inputs. Hence the benefit has to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regards the other judgement Dilip Chhabria Designs [2015-TIOL-851-HCMum- CX],= 2015 (323) ELT 565 (Bom.)] cited by Revenue to distinguish the judgement in the case of Hello Minerals (supra), we find that the facts in that case were very different in as much as in that case the assessee did not reverse the credit at the time of removal of goods or after removal . Without dwelling further on the subject, we may only add that as on today the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals (supra) continues to be good law with regard to the subject at hand and has been repeatedly followed by CESTAT, e.g., in the case of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai (Order No. S/924/14/CSTB/C-I, dated 03.09.2014), B.G. Shirke....