9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. The submission of the learned counsel that the applicant placed all the documents would be examined at the time of appeal hearing at length. It has been held by the Tribunal in various cases, as cited by the learned AR, that credit cannot be availed on the capital goods received before the service became taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. Prima facie, we find that the applicant have not declared the details of the nature of CENVAT credit in their ST-3 returns - applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of tax along with interest and penalty - stay granted partly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in the case of Navratan S.G. Highway Properties P. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad - 2012 (26) STR 10 wherein it has been held that credit cannot be denied on immovable property. He further submits even though they had placed all the documents before the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority has erroneously recorded that credit was taken on the basis of statements. He strongly argued that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued on 29.7.2010. In this context, he drew the attention of the Bench the relevant portion of the order wherein it has been recorded that they have filed the ST-3 returns declaring the entire transaction. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue submits that deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Hypo Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirupati -2012 (278) ELT 167 (AP). 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we agree with the submission of the learned AR in respect of denial of credit of Rs.36,66,326/- on capital goods received prior to 1.6.2007 much before the introduction of levy on renting of immovable property. It is also noted that denial of credit of Rs.36,54,833/- in respect of service tax paid for the construction of immovable property, they have received service prior to 1.6.2007 has been clearly mentioned in the impugned order. It is further noted that the applicant had not produced the documents before the adjudicating authority. The submission of the learned counsel that the applicant placed all the documents would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
