9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has used the service for setting up of a factory, the credit is admissible. As regards security services, the learned DR fairly admitted that this service is one of the services recognized as common service which when used by a manufacturer in respect of exempted goods as well as the dutiable goods credit can be taken. Therefore Cenvat credit of service tax paid on security service is held to be admissible and allowed. As regards GTA service and telephone service, both sides agree that these two services are not covered by the list of common services in respect of which credit would be admissible that used for exempted as well as dutiable goods. In such a situation, assessee is required to maintain separate records for taking the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty services have been disallowed and demanded with interest from the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 2,000/- has also been imposed under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. As regards construction service, it was submitted that appellant had wanted to expand the production facilities and therefore constructed a factory building on the other side of the road. Credit has been denied on the ground that the factory was constructed away from the existing premises. According to the definition of input service as it existed during the relevant period, input service included service used in relation to setting up of a factory also. So long as the manufacturer has used the service for setting up of a factory, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to maintain separate records for taking the credit and its utilization. Since assessee has failed to maintain separate accounts, the credit availed in respect of these two services has to be disallowed and has rightly been disallowed. To this extent the order of the Commissioner is required to be upheld. 5. Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- while confirming the demand for more than Rs. 4.9 lakhs. Since the demand comes down subsequently to less than Rs. 35,000/-, having regard to the size of the appellant and the amount involved, I consider it appropriate that the penalty is to be set aside. While doing this I also take note of the fact that the show-cause notice has been issued within the normal limitation time. The appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
