TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for providing certain taxable services; On conduct of an audit, two Show Cause Notices, dated 21.10.2013 and 30.01.2014 were issued to the appellants covering the periods 2008-09 to 201112 and 2012-13, respectively. The allegation in the SCNs was that the appellants have paid service tax on the technical know-how and royalty payments, on reverse charge basis, without availing the deduction on account of R & D Cess paid by them, thus resulting in excess availment of CENVAT credit and also that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit on the strength of invoices raised in the name of an unregistered premises. The proposals in the SCNs were confirmed vide OIO dated 02.07.2014 confirming the demand of Rs.46,57,205/- in respect of SCN dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1 Vs. CEGAT Chennai 2006 (202) ELT 753 (SC) • CCE Chandigarh Vs. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd., 2006 (203) ELT 213 (P&H) CCE Chandigarh-1 Vs. Swaraj Automobile Ltd. 2002 (139) ELT 504 (P&H) - • ISGEC Unit Dahej vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara - II, (2024) 21 Centax 299 (Tri.-Ahmd) • Save Industry vs. Commr. of C.EX. & S.T., Coimbatore, 2016 (45) S.T.R. 551 (Tri.-Mad) • Deloitte Haskins and Sells v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015-TIOL-366-CESTAT-MUM • Crown Products Private Limited v. CCE, Nashik, 2012-TIOL-975-CESTAT-MUM • Indian Cements Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati-GST, (2023) 7 Centax 94....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Division vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Chandigarh, 2017 (352) E.L.T. 51 (Tri.Chan.) • Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., (2006) ELT 632 (SC) 4. Learned Consultant submits that the demand for the period April 2008 to September 2011 is time barred as extended period was invoked without alleging suppression etc. with intent to evade payment of tax; the appellants entertained a bona fide belief and the issue was raised on account of an audit and therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked. He submits that for the above reason and for the reason that demand itself is not sustainable, penalties under various sections are not imposable. He relies on the following cases: • M/s Vandana Global Ltd. vs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that there are two issues involved in the case. The first one being the disallowance of CENVAT credit of excess service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism and the second one being the alleged inadmissibility of credit for the reason that the invoice raised by the service provider was in the name of the premises which is not registered. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits on the first issue that the exemption under Notification No.17/2004 is not an absolute exemption but a conditional one and the appellants are not bound to avail the exemption; the situation is revenue neutral as the appellants would be eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to pay. The respondent has taken the credit of duty, which was actually paid. We do not dilate much on the issue as this court has earlier dismissed an appeal filed by the revenue raising the similar question of law in C.E.A No. 51 of 2005 titled as Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh v. M/s Punjab Anand Lamp Industries Ltd., Mohali, decided on 4-7-2006. 7. Coming to the second issue of admissibility of CENVAT credit on the strength of the invoices in the name of the unregistered premises. We find that this issue is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of m-Portal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) wherein the Tribunal finds that: 7. Insofar as requi....