TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 of the Central Excise Act for three different periods by one common Order-in- Appeal passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-Thane), Mumbai is assailed in these three appeals. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant's Thane Office was registered as ISD during the Service Tax regime for its several manufacturing units located Pan India and it is primarily engaged in manufacturing of Cement and Clinker. Its manufacturing units were selling cement etc. directly to the Customers or through its sister concern M/s. BCCL in which Appellant is having more than 94% of share while Government of India, Ministry of Industries was having balance share. M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TIOL-2364-CESTAT-Mumbai-Service Tax], Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II reported in 2014 (10) TMI 729 - CESTAT, New Delhi and other judgements as well as on the Circular issued by the Board of the CBEC on dated 10.03.2014 vide its letter No. 137/68/2013-ST argued that demand against availment of allegedly irregular credit is not maintainable against an ISD, in view of clear provision contained in Rule 14 that permits recovery only against the "person" who has availed credit and ISD being distributor of input service credit to its respective manufacturing units cannot be demanded against the credits which were being availed and utilised by the manufacturing units even in respect of credits which are no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redits on advertisement, technical testing, analysis and consultancy services while he placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal passed in the case of Principal Commissioner Vs. Essar Oil Ltd. reported in 2016 (41) STR 389 (Guj.) and Merino Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida reported in 2020 (37) GSTL 209 (Tri.- All.) on availment of CENVAT Credit on tour operator services. Further, he argued that duty and interest were paid prior to issue of show-cause notice, except illegal portion of demand which is contested herein, for which imposition of penalty impermissible in law as per provision of the Finance Act and the decision of this Tribunal passed in the case of Commissioner Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived by the Appellant which did not fall under the definition of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for which interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is uncalled for. 5. Perused the case record, written submission and compilation of the case laws cited by both the parties and the relevant circular on the point. Going by the judgments of Kansai Nerola Paints Ltd., Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., all cited supra there can't be any second opinion that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 can only be made applicable against the manufacturer/service provider or the person who availed the allegedly inadmissible credit and show-cause notice can't be issued against the In....