2018 (2) TMI 914 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services which are related to civil work (brick work) or painting work of new construction - Held that - the Adjudicating authority has recorded that this amount is regarding service tax paid on the services rendered on the Civil construction work or works contract service and painting work of new construction. He has recorded a clear finding that these services are excluded from eligibility to availed CENVAT credit under the inclusive clause of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, I find it so. The factual findings of the Adjudicating Authority are not controverted before the Tribunal - demand upheld. As regards the confirmation of demand Approximately of ₹ 10,41,458/- availed on invoices not found - Held that - the Adjudicating Authority should have extended an opportunity to appellant to produce the documents - matter placed on remand. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of ineligible CENVAT credit
2. Contesting demand of ineligible CENVAT credit
3. Limitation on contesting demand
4. Production of invoices for availed CENVAT credit

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the availing of ineligible CENVAT credit amounting to approximately &8377; 3,72,43,061/- by the appellant during March 2012 to January 2016. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the eligibility of &8377; 3,47,37,255/- but confirmed the denial of &8377; 20,78,259/- with interest and penalties. The appellant contested this demand before the Tribunal.

2. The demand of &8377; 20,78,259/- consists of two parts. The first part of &8377; 10,36,801/- pertains to service tax paid on civil construction and painting work, which the Adjudicating Authority deemed ineligible for CENVAT credit. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority's invocation of the extended period for limitation was also upheld, given the appellant's payment of the service tax.

3. The second part of the demand, &8377; 10,41,458/-, was contested by the appellant for lack of consideration of invoices by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the Authority should have allowed the appellant to produce the documents and remitted the matter back for reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the demand of &8377; 10,36,801/- while remitting the issue of &8377; 10,41,458/- back to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, ensuring fairness and due process in the reconsideration of the contested demand.