AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the Order- in-Original No. 73/PR.COMMR/ST-I/KOL/2016-17 dated 14.09.2016 wherein the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata has disallowed the CENVAT Credit of Rs.5,10,82,374/- in terms of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. He also ordered for payment of interest under Section 75 of the Act and imposed penalty equivalent to the credit disallowed under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Act. A Service Tax demand of Rs.71,337/-, along with interest of Rs.10,921/-, was also confirmed in the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading of coal, both from indigenous sources ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VAT Credit, along with interest and penalty. 2.3. On adjudication, the Ld. Principal Commissioner, vide the impugned order, confirmed the disallowance of Service Tax credit availed by the appellant, along with interest and penalty. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. It is the submission of the appellant that they had entered into an agreement with DPCL for rendering cargo handling service; as per the 'Cargo Handling Agreement' entered into between the appellant and DPCL, DPCL is to render various services to the appellant. 4.1. The appellant submits that in case of high sea sale purchasers, when the appellant sells the imported goods on high sea sales basis, the required cargo handling servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit availed by them has been categorically indicated; that they have not suppressed any information from the Department. Thus, it is contended by the appellant that the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2015 covering the period from 2011-12 to 2013-14 is barred by limitation. 4.4. In view of these submissions, the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing their appeal. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. We observe that the appellant is engaged in trading of coal. In case of imported coal, sometimes the appellant sells whole or part of the consignment on 'high sea sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir behalf. We observe that against such services pertaining to high sea sales also, DPCL used to raise service bills upon the appellant which they paid and subsequently, the appellant availed CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on the said amount. 7.3. As per the agreement, in respect of the coal sold on high sea sales basis also, the cargo handling services were rendered by DPCL to the appellant only. This is evident from the agreement wherein 'cargo handling charges' have clearly been defined, as under: - "1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION ...... "Cargo Handling Charges" means the charges to be paid by SUPL to DPCL to avail the Services and the facilities at Terminal and computed as set out in Section 11.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowing the credit availed and utilized by the appellant is legally not sustainable. 8. We also take note of the contention raised by the appellant that the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2015 covering the period from 2011-12 to 2013-14 is barred by limitation. In this regard, we observe that the demands have been raised on the basis of scrutiny of their records viz. CENVAT Credit documents and S.T.-3 Returns filed. Since the appellant have not suppressed any information from the Department, we hold that the demand raised in this case by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 9. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant has rightly availed the credit and there is no infirmity in the availment or utilization ....