9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regards the eligibility to avail the abatement of 67% as per the Notification No. 1/2006, we find from the perusal of the documents produced before us, that the appellants had reversed the entire amount of Cenvat Credit taken on common inputs, and his plea as to applicability of provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, needs to be gone into detail by the appreciation of the evidences on record, which could not be done by this Tribunal at this juncture as the Adjudicating Authority has not recorded any findings on these pleas. In view of this, we set aside the demands, interest thereon and the penalties - ST/621/2008 - 9/2011 - Dated:- 9-12-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o why unpaid service tax and which escaped the assessment be not demanded from them and along with interest and penalty be not imposed. The appellants resisted the show-cause notice on various grounds. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions made by the appellants, came to the conclusion that the appellants are liable to pay the service tax in respect of the receipt of construction of raw water pond for BTPS plant and are ineligible for availment of abatement of 67% under Notification No. 1/2006 as regards other receipts to various other construction activities undertaken by them during the period 1-4-2006 to 31-1-2007 and are liable to pay the amount which they are collected for the various services rendered but did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Adjudicating Authority. As regards the demand of differential service tax on abatement availed by them, it is his submission that they had never taken the benefit of modvat credit and hence they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006, dated 1-3-2006. He would submit that they produced various evidences regarding the reversal of the Cenvat Credit availed on the common input services and also contended that the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will be applicable and the entire amount of credit need not be reversed, but the Adjudicating Authority had not discussed this issue. 4. Ld. Jt. CDR on the other hand, as regards the penalty of an amount of Rs. 9,24,430/- would submit that penalty is imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order. 7.1 As regards the other two issues, we are of the view that the legal point taken by the ld. Counsel that construction of raw water pond inside the BTPS plant would amounts to works contract , was taken before us for the first time. This point being not raised before the Adjudicating Authority, which Counsel fairly conceded as not been raised, we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority should be given a chance to consider this submission. 7.2 As regards the eligibility to avail the abatement of 67% as per the Notification No. 1/2006, we find from the perusal of the documents produced before us, that the appellants had reversed the entire amount of Cenvat Credit taken on common inputs, and his plea as to applicabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
