TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in one, together with penalty of Rs. 85,000 in the other, under rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of 'cement' and 'clinker' and, while with most of the production cleared to independent buyers, a minor, though relatively significant portion, was utilized for 'ready mix concrete (RMC)' plants operated by them at designated locations. While the former was subject to duties of central excise, the latter, till February 2011, was exempted and though the 'cement' so supplied was, for purposes of determination of duty, to be charged on value as prescribed in rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, the liability on specific rate, being higher, prompted n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and oral arguments, it would be appropriate to examine 'RULE 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor. - The input service distributor may distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or unit providing output service, subject to the following conditions, namely :- (a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon; or (b) the credit of service tax attributable to service use in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed. of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and take notice that it pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Credit Rules, 2004 with rule 14 therein to be invoked only upon failure to do so. In this context, decisions of the Tribunal, in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2017 (7) TMI 167 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and in Mahindra & Mahindra v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II [2018 (4) TMI 670 -CESTAT MUMBAI], afford binding precedent on jurisdiction to effect recovery, one way or other, from the zonal offices. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the 17 units, too, had not taken the credit which was merely assigned to them by the zonal offices. It is further submitted that the service tax authorities proceeded erroneously, and merely from the amendment of 'input service', effective from 1st April 2008, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r service procured for removal from the factory of manufacture to be ineligible thereof. It was further submitted that, the consignor and the consignee being one and the same, liability for tax does not arise and the availment of CENVAT credit of such amount was as good as refund to which they were entitled. It was also submitted that, notwithstanding the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Roofit Industries Ltd [2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 117 (SC)], several decisions rendered thereafter and, upon facts of each removal, did permit availment of CENVAT credit of tax paid on outward transpo....