9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the same towards security deposits/retention money? Held that: - there is no dispute that the Sub-contractor of the appellant have paid the Service tax. The appellant have admittedly reversed the said amount of credit much before the issue of SCN and accordingly no SCN was required to be issued under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - the appellant is entitled to abatement under the provisions of N/N. 1/2006-ST - appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of the amount of 1,07,28,250/-. Under the facts and circumstances, so far as the interest on 18,60,166/- is concerned, we hold that the same is not chargeable. The penalty is also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The brief facts of the case are that the M/s Reliance Infrastructure Limited (Formerly known as Reliance Energy Limited) where engaged in construction of power plant vide Letter of Award dated 2nd February, 2005 for work being Civil & Structural Works of BTG Area, Chimney & Ash Dyke including its design & engineering for 2x210 MW coal based Power Plant as Extension Units 3& 4 of U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (UPRVUNL) at Parichha (U.P.). According to the appellant the works started in February, 2005 after the aforesaid letter was issued. The total lump sum value of the contract for both the units namely 3 & 4 is ₹ 180,50,89,200/ which is inclusive and to remain FIRM for the entire period of Contract including any extension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement was continued for the material component in case of composite contracts, subject to the additional conditions that the assessee will not avail Cenvat credit of Service tax or input service tax. The appellant inadvertently took Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid, input service was received amounting to ₹ 18,60,167/- and the same reversed vide debit entry dated 02-04-2007, on being pointed out by the Revenue. Further, fact is that the appellant being registered had filed statutory returns and made other compliances. Under the facts and circumstances invoking the extended period of limitation, the Show Cause Notice demanded Cenvat credit to be disallowed for ₹ 1,07,28,250/- for the period October, 2004 to September, 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to September, 2006. He urges that the contract in question had started during the period prior to 01-03-2006 when Notification No. 15/2004 -ST was enforced. Accordingly, their rights crystallized for availing abatement along with availing Cenvat credit of input service tax for the whole project. He, further, urges that in view of the fact that the appellant on being objected to by the Revenue immediately reversed the Cenvat credits both for the retention amount as well as for the input service tax credit taken after 01-03-2006, no show cause was required to be issued under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1944. He, further, urges that service tax credit taken had been reversed without the same being utilized amounts to not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Notification No. 2/2006-ST. Further the appellant have admittedly reversed the said amount of credit much before the issue of Show Cause Notice and accordingly no Show Cause Notice was required to be issued under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. We, further, hold that the appellant is entitled to abatement under the provisions of Notification No. 1/2006-ST. We also hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit of the amount of ₹ 1,07,28,250/-. Under the facts and circumstances, so far as the interest on ₹ 18,60,166/- is concerned, we hold that the same is not chargeable. The penalty is also set aside. 10. Thus, the appeal is allowed as aforementioned. We set aside the impugned Order-in-Orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
