9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Notification was rescinded on 28-2-2006 and Notification 1/2006 issued on 1-3-2006 granting the benefit of abatement subject to condition that no Cenvat credit has been taken in respect of input, capital goods and input services or no benefit has been claimed under Notification 12/2003. Contention of respondents that since they were availing credit of tax on input services prior to 1-3-2006, they will not be eligible for abatement under Notification No. 1/2006 and they opted for availing of Cenvat credit, has substantial force and we do not find any infirmity in findings of the Commissioner allowing abatement under Notification 15/2004 prior to 1-3-2006 and Cenvat credit facility with effect from 1-3-2006. - Decided against Revenue. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. NBCC (after inclusion of cost of structural steel-supplied free by NBCC) and also proposing penalties on them. It was also proposed in the Show Cause Notice to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on the strength of invoices which were in the name of other sub-contractors of NBCC. After due process of law, the Commissioner vide his impugned Order-in-Original No. 59/2008, dated 30-7-2008 held that: (a) Appellant s activity was covered by definition of Commercial and Industrial Construction service defined under Section 65(105)(zzq) taxable with effect from 10-9-2004. (b) Appellant being provider of service was liable to pay Service Tax. (c) Rate of Service Tax was 10% up to Mar 06 and the value received from BHEL/NBCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the Commissioner has also disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 34,17,858/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Commissioner has not imposed any penalty under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Finance Act and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act, ibid. 3. Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) Value of taxable service under a single contract cannot be bifurcated to allow benefit of abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 on one part and the benefit of Cenvat Credit on the remaining part. (ii) The Commissioner has erred allowing the refund of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 4,27,813/- paid on the construction service provided to M/s. NBCC. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to this refund as per law. He submits penalty has not rightly been imposed by the Commissioner. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that Notification No. 15/2004, dated 10-9-2004 grants benefit of abatement of 67% on taxable value in respect of construction service. This benefit is available if no Cenvat credit has been taken on inputs and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules or no benefit under Notification 12/2003, dated 20-6-2003 has been availed. We find this Notification does not put any restriction that benefit under this Notification has to be availed during currency of entire contract. We also note that this Notification was rescinded on 28-2-2006 and Notification 1/2006 issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
