2026 (1) TMI 1459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER: D.M. MISRA These appeals are filed against Order-in-Original No.11/2014-15 dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture and clearance of seating system for automobiles. They had availed cenvat credit on input services and utilised the same towards payment of service tax during January 2009. After investigation, it was noticed that the cenvat credit availed was inadmissible, accordingly, show-cause notice was issued to them on 25.02.2014 for recovery of the credit along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n India as input service by Bangalore unit of Toyota Johnson. Subsequently, TMC provided drawings and designs prepared by the Pune Unit to the appellants for manufacturing of seating systems i.e., to their Bangalore Unit. The appellant availed cenvat credit of Rs.1,06,25,693/- being service tax discharged by the Pune Unit on the strength of the invoices dated 10.09.2008 and 01.07.2008 and the said cenvat credit has been availed by the appellant on the ground that designs and drawings were used by the appellant as 'input service' towards providing the output activity i.e., manufacturing of seating systems after making necessary entry in the cenvat register as well as reflecting the same in ER-1 returns for the month of January 2009. 4. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f January 2009 wherein they had clearly indicated the availment of cenvat credit of Rs.1,06,25,693/-, hence, allegation of suppression of fact and invoking of larger period of limitation confirming demand cannot be sustained. Further, he has submitted that appellant's unit had been subjected to audit several times and no objection was raised. In support, he has referred to the following decisions: • M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd. vs. CCE, Belgaum: 2024 (3) TMI 6 - CESTAT Bangalore • M/s. Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore-II: 2024 (4) TMI 31 - CESTAT Bangalore • M/s. Escorts Ltd. vs. CCE, Faridabad: 2015 (319) ELT 406 (SC) • CCE, Bangalore vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd.: 20....