9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Director of M/s. IMP Powers Ltd. and Appeal No.ST/11200/2014 is filed by M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. 3. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944, interest thereof and imposed equivalent amount of penalty on M/s. IMP Powers Ltd. and imposed penalty on the Managing Director; the adjudicating authority has confirmed service tax liability, interest thereof and penalties under various section on the main appellant and imposed penalty on the Managing Director under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalty under Section 77 on M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The confirmation of the demand is arising on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of works contract entered into by the appellant. He would submit that this bench in the case of Essar Projects (India) Ltd. - 2014 (33) STR 696 (Tri.) had specifically held that separate contracts if entered for supplies and services, they same has to be accepted and appropriate tax and excise duty needs to be collected. He would also read through the scope of the expression "gross amount" as per works contract composition scheme as has been clarified by CBEC Circular NO.150/1/2012-ST, dt. 08.02.2012. 7. Ld. Counsel Shri Natarajan appearing on behalf of M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd, would submit that the appellant herein has been imposed with penalty on the ground that this appellant had helped and advised M/s. IMP Powers Ltd. for evas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mers. It is his submission that both the appellants should be put to strict conditions for hearing and disposing their appeals. 9. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides. 10. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant M/s. IMP Powers Ltd. is a manufacturer of transformers and discharges appropriate central excise duty on such transformers manufactured and cleared by them. In the case in hand, it is also undisputed that the transformers which were manufactured and cleared by the appellants on discharge of appropriate central excise duty are to the site of MSEB, for further activity of erection and commissioning. In our considered view, prima facie, the denial of the Cenvat Credit on the inputs whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
