9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.PI/COMMR/ST/03/2012 dated 23.01.2012. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records it transpires that appellant was engaged in providing services under the category of 'Site Formation & Clearance" services, Excavation & Earth moving and Demolition, Commercial & Industrial Construction Services and were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered for construction of roads, pipelines etc; by following the decided case laws but upheld the tax liability on STGU services denied CENVAT credit as appellant failed to produce documentary evidences and also imposed penalties; appropriated the tax paid by appellant on other services. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant takes us through the entire case records. It is his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put services is Rs. 129924/-. Thus they paid an amount of Rs. 1767513/- by GAR-7 challans. It is pertinent to note that the show-cause notice has specifically stated that the notice had claimed some capital goods credit and they were asked to furnish the relevant documents in respect of these capital goods and that the admissibility of the credits claimed by them could not be verified as the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the credits did not pertain to exempted services and that the capital goods were not exclusively used for exempted services. Since they have not done so, I do not accept their claim to the credit and hold that they have among other things, also short paid the service tax to the extent of Rs. 1106674/- claimed by them as credit." 6.1 We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by appellant on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
