Appeal No.E/289/2012-SM, [Arising out of OIA No.84/2012(Ahd-II)CE/MM/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.14.03.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad]. Case: Ms. Sacmi Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Appeal No.E/289/2012-SM, [Arising out of OIA No.84/2012(Ahd-II)CE/MM/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.14.03.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad] |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri A. Mishra, A.R. |
| Judges | Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) |
| Issue | Customs Law |
| Judgement Date | May 31, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Dr. D.M. Misra, J.
-
Heard both sides.
-
This is an appeal filed against OIA No.84/2012(Ahd-II)CE/MM/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.14.03.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad.
-
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants had availed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.21,01,800/- of Service Tax paid on immovable property services received by them during the period 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 on the invoices in the name of their head office at Mumbai. On being objected by the Audit, they reversed the credit on 30.09.2010 and on the same day, taken the re-credit of the amount in their books of account.
-
The learned Advocate Shri Paritosh Gupta for the Appellant submits that both the authorities below do not dispute the eligibility of credit availed by them on the input services. However, it has been held that availing suo moto re-credit is contrary to the provisions of law and recoverable from them. The learned Advocate submits that though they have reversed the credit, but, on the same date of reversal, taken re-credit of the amount, hence in absence of allegation of availing inadmissible credit, the same cannot be denied, merely on account of correction of the entry in the books of account. Also, he has submitted that the said correction in the relevant CENVAT register was effected before filing the monthly ER-1 return by them. In support, he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of S. Subramanyan & Co. Vs CCE Vadodara 2011 (268) ELT 497 (Tri-Ahmd), Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Vadodara-I 2013 (291) ELT 60 (Tri-Ahmd).
-
The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and refers to...
To continue reading
Request your trial