9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts, availing the benefit of Cenvat credit on the latter type of projects - Held that:- The adjudicating authority has not stated any evidence to prove that the applicant used inputs or capital goods on which cenvat credit was taken, in projects for which abatement was claimed. Adjudicating authority has put the onus of proving the converse of this position on the applicant and held that such onus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI P.K. DAS AND SHRI MATHEW JOHN, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Adv., For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Mathew John; The applicant is engaged in the business of Commercial and Industrial Construction services. In respect of certain projects, they availed abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST and under Notification No. 1/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest and penalty. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand mainly on the ground that some of the inputs and capital goods used by the applicant were capable of being used in both the type of projects i.e. those for which abatement was claimed and cenvat credit not claimed and those for which abatement was not claimed but Cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that they had given the details of credit taken specifying each item and the project in which those items were used. Asking for proof that the same items were not used in other projects amounts to asking to prove non-existence of a fact without the Revenue leading any evidence to suggest existence of the fact in dispute. 3. Considered the submissions on both sides. Prima facie, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
