2025 (11) TMI 1274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the periods 2006-07 and 2007-08, wherein the audit pointed out that since the appellant was providing both taxable and exempted services, they were eligible to take CENVAT Credit only to the extent of 20% of the total cenvatable invoice amounts. Accordingly, it was pointed out that during the periods 2006-07 and 2007-08, the appellant had taken excess credit of Rs.14,48,097/-. 1.2. Based on the audit observation dated 11.01.2010, the appellant reversed the amount of Rs.14,48,097/-, along with interest of Rs.7,23,672/-. 2. For the subsequent years i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10, the appellant were reversing the proportionate CENVAT Credit as per Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 3. However, the Departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (30) G.S.T.L. 474 (Telangana)] wherein it has been held that there is no need for the appellant to pay 8% / 6% of the exempted turnover; that such decisions were also earlier given by other High Courts and Tribunals. 4.2. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prays that their appeal be allowed. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that the appellant did not file their option letter; as a matter of fact, in the first two years viz. 2006-07 and 2007-08, the appellant were availing full CENVAT Credit and have reversed this amount only after the same was verified and found by the audit team. She contends that assessees are required to file their option letter stating that they would be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther, we find that in the case of M/s. Tiara Advertising v. Union of India [2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 474 (Telangana)], the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana has held as under: - "14. Further, we may reiterate that Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, merely offers options to an output service provider who does not maintain separate accounts in relation to receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs/input services used for provision of output services which are chargeable to duty/tax as well as exempted services. If such options are not exercised by the service provider, the provision does not contemplate that the Service Tax authorities can choose one of the options on behalf of the service provider. As rightly pointed out by Sri S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 10. We also take note of this Tribunal's decision on the same issue in case of M/s. The Oberoi Rajvilas v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported under 2018 (5) TMI 1715 - CESTAT New Delhi, the relevant extract of same are reproduced here below :- "9. From the above, we note that the appellant has followed the proportionate method for availment of credit on common input services. It cannot be said that the appellant has availed any credit on input services used in providing exempted service. The reversal of credit as above satisfies the requirement of non-availment of credit laid....