I find that the appellant shifted the machinery from their registered premises without reversal of the credit. The Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter, the appellant reversed the credit.
The appellant availed CENVAT credit during the period from June 2009 to March 2010 on the service tax paid on the basis of the invoices issued in the name of their head office. The Learned Advocate submits that the appellant is only manufacturing unit of the head office.
In the case of M/s. L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara, it was held that the requirement under Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to intimate the department regarding adjustment of excess service tax paid
Subic Innovative Plastics (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) had taken Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development (R&D) and Quality Control Laboratory situated in the factory premises.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Quippo Energy Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST held that the activities carried on by the assessee on imported gensets results into existence of a more functional & operational product catering the needs of industrial consumers
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Iwi Crogenic Vaporization System India held that The non-payment of recovered tax coupled with the fact of non-furnishing of the details in respect of unpaid part in periodical returns clearly establish the intention of assesse to evade the payment of service tax recovered. Therefore, in such a case penalty levied u/s 78 is sustainable in law.
The appellant challenged the charges particularly by showing various evidences of receipt of goods, Lorry Receipt, Purity Check report, Payment of Labour Bills and other details, which were not disputed by the lower authorities.
In the present case, it was found that the input supplier supplied input accompanied with Central Excise invoice. There is no dispute of genuinity of invoice. It is clearly evident from the statement of input supplied by the transporter. In such a situation
Tribunal observed that normally it is practice that in case of any doubt or ambiguity, taxing provision is normally construed in favour of the assessee but when it is case of granting some exemption then there should be strict interpretation.
The crucial fact required to be seen is whether the main appellant should have enquired beyond the cenvatable document showing payment of duty that whether the inputs were due to the result of manufacture or not.
