TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case are that the appellant are engaged in providing taxable service viz. 'Business Support Services', 'Maintenance or Repair Services' and 'Commercial Coaching and Training Services' etc. during the relevant period. On the basis of the Central Excise Revenue Audit on scrutiny of their records, it revealed that they had availed inadmissible cenvat credit amounting to Rs.2,03,69,372/- during the period from September 2004 to November, 2006 on inputs which were not used in providing the output services but were removed from the registered premises "as such" for the purpose of trading activity. The amount equivalent to the cenvat credit availed on such goods being not admissible, later they have voluntarily reversed the cenvat credit avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... General Manager (CMTS) Vs. Commissioner [2014(36) STR 1084 (Tri.)] iii. Chola Business Services Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai [2017(47) STR 192 (Tri. Chennai)] 2.2. Further, the learned advocate has submitted that the appellant had paid Rs.2,89,78,046/- on export of services which they are eligible to claim refund and instead of adjusting the said amount against the liability of Rs.2,03,69,372/- by way of filing refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 would be a additional procedure which is against the spirit of provisions relating to adjustment of excess payment. In support, he has referred to the following decisions:- i. Nirma Architects & Valuers Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2006(1) STR 305 (Tri. Del.)] ii. B4U Television....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcess service tax paid since February 2007 and the show-cause notice has been issued on 15.06.2009 after they have discharged the amount of Rs.46,84,505/- by way of interest i.e. after about 2 years from the date of occurrence of the event. Therefore, the demand is barred by limitation. In support, they have referred to the following decisions: i. CCE Vs. Manuelsons Wood Industries [2007(210) ELT 230 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Highland Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000(121) ELT 502]; affirmed by Supreme Court 2006(198) ELT A66 (SC). iii. RAD MRO Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010(258) ELT 235 (Tri. Bang.)] iv. Mordi Textiles and Processors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2013(293) ELT 686 (Tri. Del.)] Consequently, no interest and penalty to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax thereon to the person from whom it was received. 7. A plain and simple reading of the same makes it clear that in the event, the assessee pays service tax in respect of a taxable service which is not paid by either wholly or partially for any reason, he may adjust the service tax so paid by him against the service tax liability for the subsequent period. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee is allowed to adjust service tax excess paid against the service tax liability for the subsequent period. Whereas in the present case, the appellant had erroneously availed cenvat credit of Rs.2,03,69,972/- and sought to adjust against service tax paid on export of services previously which cannot be considered as an adjustment of service tax rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal in the case of Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., which later followed in GKN Driveline (India) Ltd. (supra), which reads as:- 12. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, we find that the appellant as per the normal commercial practice in the automobile industry has made a provision for writing off the cenvat credit on inputs as per Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the audit, the department was of the view that the appellant is required to reverse Cenvat Credit availed on inputs which were written off as per Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 13. Further, we find that during the relevant period, there was no recovery mechanism under Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eon under Rule 3(5B) etc. which was made applicable with effect from 01.3.2013 only, by virtue of Notification No. 3 of 2013-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2013. The notification provides that if the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service fails to paythe amount payable under sub-rule (5), (5A) and (5B), it shall be recovered, in the manner as provided in Rule 14, for recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken. 8. Learned Counsel have also pressed the ground that as they were not required to reverse the cenvat credit on partial writing down the value of inputs, prior to 01.03.2011, accordingly, we hold that as there was no such legal requirement. The learned Counsel also prays that they are entitled to refund, already reversed credit on ac....