Page 84 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

410 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. — 2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.) — Relied on ........... [Paras 2, 6]
Commissioner v. Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd. — 2014 (36) S.T.R. 554 (Tribunal) — Referred .......... [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Nepa Ltd. — 2013 (298) E.L.T. 225 (Tribunal) — Referred ................................... [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd.
— 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 661 (Raj.) — Referred .................................................................................. [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Shital International — 2010 (259) E.L.T. 165 (S.C.) — Relied on...................... [Paras 2, 6]
Commissioner v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. — 2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) — Referred ............ [Para 2]
Jajmau Dyeing & Proofing Co. v. Collector — 1998 (97) E.L.T. 217 (S.C.) — Referred ................... [Para 3]
Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Producers Coop. Indl. Society Ltd. v. Collector
— 1996 (88) E.L.T. 637 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................................................................... [Paras 2, 6]
Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. Collector — 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) — Referred ............... [Para 2]
Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills
— 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ........................................................................................ [Para 2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri K. Kurmi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant M/s. Mackintosh
Burn Ltd. (PSU), Kolkata against the Order-in-Original No. 15/Commr./ST/
KOL/2013-14, dated 20-6-2013, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kol-
kata. Vide the Impugned Order, Ld. Commissioner has demanded Service Tax of
Rs. 2,53,08,925/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest
while imposing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that in the impugned order,
Commissioner has traversed beyond the scope of show cause notice by not ap-
propriating the amount of Service Tax paid by them through Cenvat credit while
he has appropriated the amount paid by cash. Ld. Counsel for the appellants re-
lied on the following case laws to support their point that the adjudicating au-
thority cannot traverse beyond the issues set out in the show cause notice :-
(i) CCE v. Ballarpur Indust. Ltd. [2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.)]
(ii) CCE v. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)]
(iii) CCE v. Shital International [(2011) 1 SCC 109 = 2010 (259) E.L.T. 165
(S.C.)]
(iv) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (88) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)]
(v) Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Indl. Society v. CCE [1996
(88) E.L.T. 637 (S.C.)]
(vi) CCE v. Nepa Ltd. [2013 (298) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. - Del.)]
(vii) UOI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]
(viii) CCE v. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corp. Ltd. [2018 (15) G.S.T.L 661
(Raj.)]
(ix) CCE v. Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd. [2014 (36) S.T.R. 554 (Tri. - Del.)].
He submits that in the instant case, the show cause notice is basically issued for
demand of duty and as such, Ld. Commissioner’s findings on the Cenvat credit
were not called for. Ld. Counsel also submits that in view of the provision of Sec-
tion 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants are eligible for cum-duty bene-
fit on the amount received by them from their clients. Ld. Commissioner having
denied the same has done great injustice to the appellants.
3. Ld. AR for the Department while reiterating the findings of the OIO
submits that it is not the Commissioner who has raked up the issue of Cenvat

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  204