TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tails of the five appeals are as under: (i) Excise Appeal No. 70633 of 2013 is related to denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,17,41,737/- pertaining to the period from 2007-08 to 2010-11. The SCN bearing No. 24/Commr/Bol/12 dated 21.03.2012 was issued covering the period 2007-08 to 2010-11, by invoking extended period of limitation. (ii) Excise Appeal No. 78713 of 2018, is related to denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.58,938/- pertaining to the period 2008-09. The SCN bearing No.02/AC/DGP-I/13 dated 12.03.2013 was issued covering the period 2008-09, by invoking extended period of limitation. (iii) Excise Appeal 79090 of 2018, is related to denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.19,76,334/- pertaining to the period 2009-10. The SCN bearing No. 04/ADC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entire credit in spite of the fact that the Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had already denied the CENVAT credit of service tax of Rs. 19,76,334/- and Rs. 3,66,481/- respectively for the year 2009-10. Therefore, the appellant contends that the findings of the Ld. Commissioner that three Show Cause Notices were related to different issues, is not correct since in all the notices are related to availability of CENVAT credit of service tax on input services. The appellant further submits that 'trading' has been brought under the category of 'exempted service' only with effect from 01.04.2011. Thus, it is pointed out that prior to this period there is no need to reverse proportional credit attributed to the exem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant mentions that the services were actually received and utilized at the factory only. They also submit that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the ground that the head office has not taken the ISD registration. When the receipt and utilization of the service are not in dispute, the credit available to the appellant cannot be denied on mere procedural infirmities. Accordingly, the appellant submitted that the above credit availed by them cannot be denied. The appellant further submits that the notice has been issued on the basis of audit objections raised. They have submitted that two other notices have been issued proposing to deny CENVAT Credit on the basis of audit objections and hence, the demand confirmed by invoking extended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of input service credit amounting to Rs. 1,17,41,737/-on account of availment of input service credit attributable to trading activity, has covered the credit availed for this period also. Accordingly, the appellant submits that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny this credit. Thus, the appellant prayed for allowing the credit. 3.3. Excise Appeal No.75370 of 2020, is related to denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,66,481/- pertaining to the period 2009-10. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 17/BOL-ST/2020-21 dated 04.06.2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Durgapu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t therefore prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed by way of the impugned order. 3.5. In view of the above submissions, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and allowing their appeals. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We observe that the impugned order dated 12.03.2013 has been issued for reversal of input service credit amounting to Rs. 1,17,41,737/-on account of availment of input service credit attributable to trading activity. However, we observe that 'trading' has been brought under the category of 'exempted service' only with effect from 01.04.2011. Thus, prior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant." 6.2. Thus, we hold that the demands confirmed in the subsequent notices, invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 6.3. Regarding merits of availment of credit of input services involved in these appeals, we observe that t....