9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services of renting of immovable property (used for car parking) and services of club membership (membership of India International Centre, New Delhi and IEEMA, New Delhi). The total disputed amount of Cenvat credit in respect of these two services is Rs. 1,06,375/- which was availed during the period from 2007-2008 to September, 2010. The Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 18-11-2011 held that these two services are not eligible for Cenvat credit and accordingly vide order dated 18-11-2011 confirmed the Cenvat credit demand along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Asstt. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f final product then, the credit of service tax paid on such input service would be allowable, that during the period of dispute, definition of 'input service' covered 'activities relating to business', that in any case, the bulk of the Cenvat credit demand is time-barred as while the period of demand is from 2007-2008 to September, 2010, the show cause notice has been issued on 8-12-2010 and in this case the appellant were regularly filing the ER-1 returns disclosing the availment of Cenvat credit in respect of the various inputs and input services, and hence the appellant cannot be accused of suppressing any information from the department, moreso, when the availment of Cenvat credit in respect of these services was detected by the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inished product and hence, this service is not covered by the definition of 'input services', that so far as the services of club membership is concerned, there is no nexus of this service with the manufacture of final products and hence, this service is also not eligible for Cenvat credit, that the appellant while availing the Cenvat credit in respect of these two services never specifically disclosed in ER-1 return filed by them or by other means about the availment of Cenvat credit and hence, the longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act has been correctly invoked and penalty of equal amount has been correctly imposed on the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Ultratech Cement this service would have to be treated as an input service. 8. As regards the question of limitation, it is not denied the availment of Cenvat credit in respect of these services was detected by the department only in course of audit of their records in course of which the appellant themselves had presented their records to the auditors. It is also not denied that the appellant were regularly submitting ER-I returns and the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers were well within their powers to call for records and examine the same. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Prolite Engg. v. CCE (supra), the appellant cannot be accused of suppression of the relevant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
