TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices while providing taxable and exempted services. 2. The brief facts are alleging that the Appellant had claimed ineligible CENVAT credit on the common input services for taxable and exempted services without maintaining separate inventory/account, proceedings were initiated and issued show cause notice on 31.05.2017 for the period from 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Adjudication authority as per order dated 31.07.2019 confirmed the demand under Rule 14(1)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and appropriated the amount paid by the Appellant. Further, interest was also confirmed and penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 11AC(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Aggrieved by said order, an appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned period as per Rule 6(3)(ii) r/w 6(3A) of CCR, 2004, immediately thereafter appellant determined the CENVAT credit attributable to trading activity and vide debit entry dated 08.12.2016, Appellant reversed CENVAT credit of Rs.7530/- for the above period and intimated the same to Department vide letter dated 19.12.2016 with calculation details. However, without considering the same, Audit report was issued on 03.03.2017 and subsequently show cause notice dated 31.03.2017 was issued alleging that the amount payable by the Appellant is Rs. 2,49,325/- being the 6/7% of the value exempted service for the period from 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Learned Counsel further submits that Adjudication Authority failed to consider the details of cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....everse the proportionate CENVAT credit. Moreover Rule 6(3A) has been brought into effect from 01.04.2016 where the Adjudication authority is empowered to allow the Appellant to reverse CENVAT credit on proportionate basis being point out. In the present case, though Appellant had given the details regarding the CENVAT credit availed on such activities, no finding is given by the Adjudication authority to reject the same and suo-moto proceeded with 6/7% of value of the exempted goods as alleged in the show cause notice to confirm demand. Learned Counsel further submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Chryso India Pvt Ltd Vs. CGST, Kolkata (2023 (5) TMI-596-CESTAT-KOLKATA) where it is held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017(347) ELT 112 (Tri. Bang)] wherein the Tribunal has held that the condition in Rule 6(3A) to intimate the Department is only a procedural one and such a procedural lapse is condonable and denial of substantive right on such procedural failure is unjustified. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aster Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC [2016(43) STR 411 wherein the Tribunal has held that the said rule does not say that on failure to intimate, the manufacturer / service provider would lose his choice to avail the second option of reversing proportionate credit. It was further held that Rule 6(3A) was only a procedural rule which cannot deny the substantive right. Appellant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no intension of suppress the facts. Mere failure to furnish the details of trading activity by the Appellant will not construed willful suppression of fact and that of non-furnishing details. In this regard, Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CC, Mumbai Vs. M/s Damlet Chemical Pvt Ltd (2007 TIOL-156 SC CX) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Continental Foundation Vs. CC (2007 (216) E.L.T 177 (SC). 7. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that once appellant admits their failure to maintain details of credit against exempted goods, they are liable to reverse the credit as held by Adjudicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that when all the transactions are duly recorded by the Appellant and when information to issue a show cause notice was gathered from such records, no allegation can be made that Appellant had indulged in willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade of payment of tax. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Continental Foundation (supra). Accordingly, demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation and penalty are unsustainable. 11. As regards demand for the normal period, we find that the Appellant had furnished the details and it is for the Adjudication Authority to find out whether there was any omission on the part of the Appellant while rever....