TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Service Tax credit for an amount of Rs. 4,16,883/. The show cause notice also seeks payment of interest and imposition of penalty of an equal amount. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of exisable goods viz. Ferro Alloys, MS Flat, MS Billet, SS Billets, etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are also engaged in import and export of raw materials/goods manufactured. For purpose of effecting exports and imports, the appellants avails the services of Customs Brokers and other Cargo Handling Service providers like Steamer Agents, Shipping Lines, etc. It is their case that at times, goods are not loaded onto the containers and not cleared from the port in time for which they are billed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as "Delayed Rent". Subsequent thereto, the appellant were issued Show Cause Notice dated 23 February 2015 invoking larger period of limitation in the matter seeking recovery of such credit availed. Following due process in law, the matter was adjudicated by the jurisdictional authorities and the impugned amount confirmed. 4. We have heard the Learned AR for the Revenue who submits that the impugned Order is legal and proper and appropriate course for the appellant was to file a refund claim for such Service Tax paid and the appellant was not entitled to claim credit of the said Service Tax amount. 5. The appellant have been issued the impugned notice invoking larger period of limitation under section 11A(4) proviso stating that the cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y did not amount to manufacture and there was no question of levy of duty, even if the duty was paid, Modvat Credit thereto cannot be denied by holding that the same did not amount to manufacture. Revenue's appeal to Supreme Court in the matter was also dismissed (2009 (243) ELT A120 SC). 8. To similar ratio, are a plethora of decisions where activity undertaken did not amount to manufacture or the goods were not excisable yet duty paid and credit availed on such goods was not required to be reversed. Some of which are as under:- • Commr. of C. Ex., Pune III Vs. Ashok Enterprises-2008 (221) ELT 586(T) • Super Forgings & Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (T) â....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the relevant information...................... Therefore, only normal limitation period would be available to the department for recovery of ineligible Cenvat credit. (Emphasis supplied) 11. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs. Accurate Chemical Industries-2014 (310) E.L.T. 441 (All.) has clearly held as under:- ".......................................The short payment was detected when an audit team visited the premises and examined the records but this, as the Tribunal held, could have been detected even by the jurisdictional Range Officer much earlier. In the circumstances, it was held that there was no suppression of fact or wilful misstatement on the part of the assessee and no ground was, therefore, ....