2025 (10) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that as the appellants provided taxable services and the exempted services, they were required to reverse an amount equal to a percentage of exempted services or the credit attributable to exempted services in terms of Rule 6 (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules. A show cause notice, dated 11.02.2012, was issued to the appellants demanding service tax, for the period April 2010 to March 2011. Learned Commissioner vide OIO dated 21.09.2015 confirmed demand of Rs.74,95,516/- under Rule 14 of CCR along with equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 ibid. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant is not liable to pay amount calculated under Rule 6(3) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UOI, 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.) • M/s. Bridgeview Broadband Network P Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Shimla, Final Order No. 60454/2025 dated 26.03.2025 (Tri.-Chan.) • Dabur India Ltd (formerly known as Balsara Home Products Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, 2024 (9) TMI 1545 - CESTAT Chandigarh • Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise, Nagpur, 1995 (12) TMI 72-SC • Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Panchkula, 2025 (4) TMI 1185 CESTAT Chandigarh • M/s Sky Automobiles v. The Principal Commissioner, Central GST, Central Excise & Service Tax, Chhattisgarh, 2024 (12) TMI 1559 - CESTAT Ahmedabad ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e find that this Bench in the case of M/s Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., vide Final Order No. 60162/2024 dated 05.04.2024, involving identical issue, found as follows: 7. We find that the first demand is confirmed on the allegation that the appellants have availed Cenvat Credit in excess of 20% of the amount payable on taxable output service in respect of services provided by them to SEZ, in terms of Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004 during the relevant period. We find that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the retrospective amendment, vide Finance Act 2012, to the effect that Rules 6 (1), (2) and (3) do not apply to Services provided to SEZ. Tribunal held in the case of Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. (Supra) 6. The....