Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (9) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the market. - . However, appellant has not shown as to how the membership of India International Centre, New Delhi has the nexus with the manufacturing business and as such the services tax paid on the membership fee of this club is not cenvatable. - Decided against the assessee. Renting of Car Parking Space - Held that:- The car parking space had been used for parking of the vehicles of the assesse-company and its officers and as such this service had nexus with the business of the assesse and had to be treated activity related to business – Repying upon - CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd., [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - The service would have to be treated as an input service. Bar of Limitation - Held that:- Onl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich 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. Commissioner was upheld by the order-in-appeal dated 25-4-2012 against which this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri K. L. Handa, Consultant, ld. counsel for the appellant pleaded that the car parking expenses have been included in the costing of their fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arred 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 department in course of audit of their records, during which, the appellant themselves had produced all the records, that he also relies upon the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prolite Engg v. CCE reported in 1995 (75) E. L. T. 257 (Guj.) wherein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... igible 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 impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. So far as the service of club membership is concerned, the appellant were availing this service from India International Centre and IEEMA. In respect of membership of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f 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 information as it is not the allegation of the department that the appellant in terms of legal requirements were required to give invoice-wise and item-wise details of Cenvat credit which they have not given. Therefore, only normal limitation period would be avail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates