TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registered under Central Excise as well as Service Tax. On conduct of an audit of the records of the appellant, it appeared to the Department that the appellant have availed cenvat credit on certain services which is not eligible in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice dated 01.01.2015 was issued demanding Rs. 5,09,14,878/- covering the period December 2009 to March 2012 along with interest and penalties. The said show-cause notice was confirmed by the impugned order vide which learned Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs. 3,93,18,913/- along with interest and equal penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot invoke extended period in the subsequent show-cause notice. The show-cause notice covering the period December 2009 to March 2012 was issued on 01.01.2015, beyond the period of limitation and therefore the entire demand is liable to be dropped on limitation alone. He relies on the following cases: a. Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE, A.P. - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C) b. ECE Industries Limited Vs. CCE, Delhi - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C) c. Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 151 (S.C) d. Bhagavati Spherocast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahm II - 2019 (368) E.L.T. 308 (Guj.) e. CCE & C, Nasik Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - 2018 (11) GSTL 126 (Bom.) 5. Learned counsel further submits that though the show-cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services utilized in relation to mines, airport, guest houses, township, roads the activities of which are inseparably linked to the main activity of manufacture. He relies on the Final Order of this Bench(supra) and submits that credit cannot be denied. He submits that the Department has displayed a vexatious nature by issuing repeated show-cause notices, on the same issue which was dropped by the Commissioner, invoking extended period time and again. He submits that such an order is not legally sustainable. 7. Mr. M.A. Jithandra, AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Order-in-Original and points out that credit on certain services, which are clearly not covered by the definition under Rule 2(l) has been availed; an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../covered in the earlier show-cause notices; learned Commissioner therefore confirms the demand to the extent of 3.93 Crores only as against demand of about 5 Crores. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that while acknowledging that the amounts/services are already covered in the previous show-cause notices, learned Commissioner proceeds to confirm the instant demand on limitation. We find that this is not legally permissible. Invocation of extended period requires the evidence regarding the satisfaction of the conditions prescribed therein like suppression of facts etc. with an intent to evade payment of duty. Leaving alone such proof, we find that learned Commissioner does not even discuss as to why extended per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the final products. Only change made after amendment is that certain services are excluded. We find that various High Courts have interpreted to Rules to have a wider connotation rather than the constrictive view taken by Revenue. We find that Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Coca Cola India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) has held that the manufacturer is entitled to take credit on services used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of the final products up to the place of removal and on various services as illustrated in the inclusive part of the definition; further they held, in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. - 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) that the definition o....