Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Msp Steel & Power Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 17 of 2012-SM
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 160/RPR-I/2011 dated 29.09.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Msp Steel & Power Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent,
Raipur Appearance:
Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants Shri M S Negi, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing/ Decision : 8.05.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 52165 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The appellant availed Cenvat credit of Rs.5,28,389/- for the period April,2005 to July, 2005, in respect of GTA services so availed by them on reverse charge basis, the service tax was required to be paid by the appellant and they paid the same by the due date, which was the 5th of subsequent manufacture.
2. The Revenues only objection is that they availed Cenvat credit before paying service tax. Accordingly, the entire service tax stand paid along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount.
3. After hearing both sides, I find that there is no dispute about the admissibility of credit. Learned advocate submits that though the credit was taken prior to the deposit of same, but the credit was never utilized by them. It is a bonafide interpretation of law and no penalty should be imposed upon them on that ground.
4. It is seen that the appellants, though have not utilized the credit, before the due date but have already deposited the interest and is not contesting the same. Challenge is only to imposition of penalty.
5. Inasmuch as the entire credit was availed by reflecting the same on the statutory records and issue being bonafide interpretation of the provisions of law, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant so as to invoke the penal provisions against them.
6. In view of the above, I hold that the appellant was entitled to the credit and no penalty was to be imposed upon him. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2