9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order is set aside save and except the issue relating to credit pertaining to capital goods used exclusively for providing exempted services which are not contested by the appellant – decided partly in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.2793 - 2795 of 2012 (DB) - Final Order No. 70360-70362/2016 - Dated:- 19-11-2015 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member and Mr. C.J. Mathew, Technical Member Present Shri B.L. Narasimhan , Advocate for the appellants Present Shri Devendra Nagvenkar, Additional Commissioner (A.R) for the respondent/Revenue ORDER The appellant, M/s Magnum Ventures Ltd. is in appeal against the order-in-original dated 5.6.2012 by which the demand of cenvat credit has been made under Rule 6 (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or period 4/2007 to 3/2010 and sometime in August, 2011 and thereafter show cause notice dated 12.7.2011 was issued and it appears that the appellant failed to provide documents/information leading to issuance of summons and in the statement of Shri V. S. Gusain (Manager-Finance) stated that they are not maintaining any separate account/inventory in respect of utilisation of input credit and input for taxable and non-taxable services. Further it appears that the appellant failed to submit the desired information in spite of reminders and on the basis of information provided , it appears that the appellant was availing cenvat credit of service tax paid on the input services like architecture service, site formation service, management consul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le /wrong availment of cenvat credit under the provision of Rule 14 and further the amount of ₹ 81,189/- reversed by the appellant out of the amount of ₹ 29,88,886/- should not be appropriated and why interest and penalties under Rule 15(3) read with Section 78 and personal penalty on Vijender Singh Gusain, Senior Manager (Finance) should not be demanded and recovered under Rule 15 ibid. 4. The appellant contested the show cause notice and the same was adjudicated . The proposed demand with respect to reversal of cenvat credit under Rule 6 (3) read with Rule 6(3A) was confirmed , against proposed demand of ₹ 29,88,886/-, confirmed ₹ 21,45,284/- on account of discrepancy of documents with regard to input credit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;infrastructure use service' are not 'exempted services' as the same are not taxable. This Tribunal did not agree with this contention observing that the expression 'exempted services' covers not only the services taxable under Section 66 of the Act, which are fully exempted from service tax by some exemption notification issued under Section 93, but also those services which are not taxable under Section 66 of the Act. Accordingly the Tribunal treated the said services as exempted services. 8. Ld. Counsel for the asessee further contends that service is exempt only when the service is one of the services as defined in Section 65(105) of the Act. It is further contended that without admitting that the service is exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004 provides for bifurcation of common cenvat credit taken towards taxable activity and non-taxable activity and the same was bifurcated on the ratio of turnover of non-taxable portion which comes to ₹ 10,68,865/- (as demonstrated' in Para C-5 of Statement of facts) which can be said to be maximum amount reversible under Rule 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004. Ld. Counsel further points out that the Id. Commissioner has rejected their contention as regards to separate account maintained only on the ground of statement of Shri Vijender Singh Gusain, Senior Manager (Finance) stating they have not maintained inventory/separate account. For appreciation answer the question to the officer, the same are reproduced below: Q. Whether you have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 246 wherein column, name is given with address etc. Details of goods. It is further seen that details of service tax paid is given in the bill of the Container Corporation of India which have been paid. So far as invoices of R.K. Suri, a freight forwarder is concerned the defect pointed out is that name of the consignee is not mentioned, as it appears from the invoice in the paper book, the name of the appellant is there and as such there is no defect. Further the service tax, bill number, amount of service tax etc. were also given. As regards the services availed from MEC Electric Contracts (P) Ltd., the allegation is that the same has been taken on the basis of covering letter. The Id. Counsel demonstrates from the sample invoice in page ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
