TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following has been observed: "5.1 Rule 7 of the CCR, 2004 w.e.f 2012 is reproduced below: 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor.-The input service distributor may distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the following condition s, namely:- (a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon; (b) credit of service tax attributable to service used in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed; (c) credit of servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus the demand of this period is confirmed. 5.3 Secondly, the distribution of CENVAT Credit was required to be made on pro-rata basis in accordance with Rule 7 (d) of CCR, 2004 during the period October 2014 to June 2017. From the said rule, it is observed that "credit of service tax attributable to service used in more than one unit shall be distributed pro rata on basis of turnover ......", thus, the distribution of cenvat credit on pro rata basis always remained mandatory in terms of Rule 7 (d) of the CCR, 2004 irrespective of change in definition. 5.4 I find that the appellant has relied upon following case laws; a. CGST, Pune I v/s M/s Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (366) ELT 624 (Bom) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SD in contravention of the provisions of Rules 3 and 7 of the CCR, 2004. The appellant had suppressed wilfully the above fact with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise Duty and a proposal was made to recover the above excess credit. They were thus asked to show cause as to why: (i) An amount of Rs 88,28,040.00 (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand and Forty only) in terms of Rule 7 (d) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should not be demanded and recovered from them, for the period October 2014 to June 2017 under erstwhile Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (ii) Interest at applicable rate, on the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missed as per the impugned order. 2.6 Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Vinay Kansara, Advocate for the appellant and Shri A K Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned counsel while making detailed submission on the merits of the case, placed on record Final order No 40021/2023 dated 31.01.2023 whereby the same issue in the appellants unit located in Tiruchirapalli has been decided by the Chennai Bench. 3.3 Arguing for revenue learned authorized representative re-iterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit, the lower authorities have not denied anywhere the above facts. There is also no denial by the lower authorities that the amount of tax paid in cash by the Head Office unit was much more than the amount of credit that should have been distributed to the Head Office unit, which fact stood duly verified even during the audit. This is, therefore, clearly a revenue neutral situation since there is no Revenue loss at all to the Government and hence, the question of wilful suppression, that too with an intent to evade payment of tax, etc., would never arise. 7.2 I find that the co-ordinate Mumbai Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II [2017 (4) G.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the only allegation levelled is wilful suppression with an intent to evade tax, but however, no supporting document/evidence is placed on record to justify suppression by the appellant, who is only a recipient, and consequently, the demand also cannot sustain being hit by time-bar. The following judgements / orders support my above view:- (i) Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Dashion Ltd. [2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.)]; (ii) M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chennai [2019-TIOL-2525-CESTATMAD] 10. It is clear from the facts as borne out of the records and also as forthcoming from the orders of lower authorities that a mere allegation has been made as to the wilful sup....