9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 349 - AT - Service TaxStay application - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that - Amount of ₹ 35 crore also includes an amount of ₹ 8.24 crore for the period April 2004 to March 2006 on Steel & Cement where an amount of ₹ 2 Crore deposited through Challan, ₹ 3.74 crore through Bank Guarantee and ₹ 2.5 Crore was kept as CENVAT Credit earmarked as per Gujarat High Court s order. Remaining amounts pertain to input services and inputs, for which CENVAT Credit was either allowed by this bench, as per Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd Vs CCE Rajkot (2008 (9) TMI 117 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD). The admissibility of CENVAT Credit taken on various input services, inputs and capital goods needs to be examined in detail especially in the light of favourable judicial pronouncements brought to the notice of the bench. CENVAT Credit with respect to inputs (other than cement and steel), input services and capital goods is approx. ₹ 150 crore out of total demand of ₹ 185 crore, which prima facie appears to be either permissible or admissibility is arguable. Ld.A.R. fairly submitted that in the absence of documentary evidences furnished by the appellant it was not possible for the adjudicating authority to bifurcate between admissible and in-admissible CENVAT Credit on inputs, capital goods and services availed by the appellant - Stay granted.
Issues involved:
Stay applications regarding denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods, inputs, and input services; imposition of penalty and interest; admissibility of CENVAT Credit on cement and steel; quantification and admissibility of CENVAT Credit on various items; sufficiency of documentary evidence provided by the appellant. Analysis: The appellant filed stay applications concerning six orders-in-original where CENVAT Credit on capital goods, inputs, and input services was denied, along with penalties and interest. The appellant, providing port services, argued for the admissibility of the credit on items used in constructing a jetty and for output services. The appellant cited previous cases and judicial orders supporting their claim. The Revenue contended that specific disallowances were made previously and questioned the lack of detailed breakdown and evidence from the appellant. The bench noted that out of the total demand, a significant portion related to cement and steel, with specific amounts earmarked and deposited. The remaining amount involved input services and inputs, some of which were allowed previously or remanded for further review. The bench acknowledged the need for a detailed examination of the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on various items, especially in light of favorable judicial precedents. The lack of sufficient documentary evidence from the appellant hindered the adjudicating authority's ability to distinguish between admissible and inadmissible credits. Given the contentious nature of the issues and the substantial revenue at stake, the bench granted the stay applications for further consideration and set a date for final disposal. This judgment highlights the importance of providing comprehensive documentary evidence to support claims for CENVAT Credit and the significance of judicial precedents in determining the admissibility of such credits. The decision to allow the stay applications reflects the need for a thorough examination of the issues raised, particularly concerning the quantification and admissibility of credits on various items.
|
