9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified that the services rendered by the Appellant to them against the contract dated 29.03.2004, comprises of both installation services as well as construction services - deduction on account of advances claimed by the Appellant also needs to be scrutinized. At this stage, the offer made by the Ld.Sr.Advocate for the Appellant seems to be reasonable, consequently, we direct the Appellant to deposit Rs.20.00 Lakhs within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance directly to the Ld.Commissioner. The Ld.Commissioner after recording compliance would proceed with the adjudication afresh taking into consideration the evidences on record and also the evidences that may be placed by both sides - Matter remanded back to commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Applicant during the relevant time had availed CENVAT Credit on inputs and utilized the said credit in discharging the output services namely installation services. 3. The Ld.Sr.Advocate disputed the said finding of the Ld.Commissioner. He submits that they have subsequently obtained a clarification vide letter dt.14.03.2012 from M/s.NTPC, wherein, it has been clarified that the amount of Rs.52,15,40,000/- is not towards only installation services but it comprises both towards installation services and construction services, as well. The Ld.Sr.Advocate submits that whatever CENVAT Credit had been availed by them were in relation to installation and commissioning services and they have not claimed abatement while discharging Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a letter issued by M/s.NTPC on 23.11.2011, the Ld.Commissioner has concluded that the services rendered by the Applicant to M/s.NTPC are only in relation to installation services and not the civil construction as claimed by them. The Ld.A.R. submits that subsequent letter dt.14.03.2012 collected by Applicant from M/s.NTPC, was not before the Commissioner as the said letter was obtained after completion of adjudication proceeding. He has submitted that the said letter needs to be verified/scrutinized before accepting the same. He submits that in the chart submitted by the Ld.Sr.Advocate they have claimed deduction of Rs.49,567,093/- against advances. It is his submission that the said amount cannot be claimed as a deduction from the Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and availed CENVAT Credit on the inputs/input services relating to installation commissioning services and availed abatement for rendering civil construction services. The Revenue disputes the said fact alleging that they have not rendered civil construction services, but rendered only installation and commissioning services for which they have availed CENVAT Credit on the inputs, thus, the benefit of abatement under Notifications, namely, 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 and 1/06-ST dated 01.03.2006, as the case may be, are not applicable. Prima facie, we find that the conclusion of the ld.adjudicating authority rests on a letter issued by M/s.NTPC dated 23.11.2011. We also find that after completion of the adjudication proceeding, the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
