TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) in the above referred three appeals for the period 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively is assailed vide which he confirmed demand of Rs. 10,53,979/- Rs. 20,68,268/- and Rs. 2,33,875/- respectively in three separate orders passed on 26.04.2023, 20.05.2023 and 26.04.2023 alongwith applicable interest on those confirmed demand as well equal penalty under Section 78 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 in O-I-A of ST/86912/2023 by invoking extended period and 10% penalty on the other two appeals under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Facts of the case would go to reveal that appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods namely Fertilizers and Industrial Chemicals which is also having Service Tax Registration as a corporate unit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority is required to verify the details and pass reasoned speaking order (para-14 of the O-I-A dated 31.07.2020). Re-adjudication thereafter confirmed the same demand and duty as proposed, despite the fact that he (the Adjudicating Authority) vide his de novo order dated 09.11.2021 at para 21 had given his observation that he was inclined to believe that assessee (appellant) was not involved in trading of securities in anyway. Appellant's unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals) in this lead appeal and in the other two appeals for subsequent period has brought the dispute to this forum. 3. During course of hearing of the appeal, leaving aside the written submissions place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment was specifically informed vide their periodic letters of 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 continuously about the formula being adopted by them for provisional availment of credit and its subsequent confirmation based on actual figures through their annual returns and therefore, invocation of extended period is also barred by limitation. In citing case laws namely Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-II, 2014 (35) STR 411 (Tri. Del.), SKF India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I (2016 (41) STR 737 (Tri. Mumbai), Dabur India Ltd. Vs. CCE & Service Tax, Ghaziabad (2017 (8) GSTL 106 (Tri. All) in support of his stand, he further argued that ISD being an office of the manufacturer can never be issued with a demand-cum-recovery-notice of allegedly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is noting in the Order-in-Original dated 09.11.2021 in respect of lead appeal No. 86912/2023 at para-21 that income from securities has no bearing whatsoever on the calculation and raising of demand for which the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) need not be interfered with. 5. I have gone through the Appeal Paper Books, written note of submissions and relied upon case laws submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. At the outset, it is to be said that issue concerning raising of demand of alleged inadmissible credit against the ISD has been settled long back by this Tribunal which is consistent in its decision that it is not a manufacturer or provider of output service against whom demand under Cenvat Credit Rules-2004 or the....