TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. Similar issue decided in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd., Vs. CCE & C [2007 (11) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that in so far as the classification is arrived at by the manufacturer and discharges the duty liability, the CENVAT credit cannot be denied on such capital goods by re-classifying the same at recipients end. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21680/2014, ST/22119/2014 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) Sh. Ms. Rukmani Menon, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per : M. V. Ravindran ] 1. These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... category and mentioned in the invoices and fall under same other category. The appellant on receipt of Show Cause Notice accepted that they are not eligible for CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on rent-a-cab services and contested the matter on merits. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, appropriated the amounts paid by the appellants towards the demand of rent-a-cab services, dropped the proceedings initiated for denying Business Support Services and confirmed the demands raised on the appellant for reversal of CENVAT credit of service tax paid under the Airport Services. On an appeal, the first appellate authority also upheld the impugned orders. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that they availed CENVAT credit on service tax paid and hence there cannot be any penalty or demand by invoking extended period. It is her further submission that the first appellate authority has recorded a finding that the services rendered GHIAL as outside the airport and inside the airport and the entire activity of the appellant was hiring of the buses which fell in the category of the supply of tangible goods and an excluded services for availing CENVAT credit is incorrect. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand draws my attention to the Show Cause Notice and submits that the Show Cause Notice clearly brings out the factual position on the invoice raised by GHIAL, which indicates that services rendered by GHIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L by any stretch of imagination cannot fall under Airport services. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. Undisputed facts are the appellants are having the registered office at airport of service provider GHIAL; appellants employees are transported from their residence to place of work and dropped back by the buses operated by the GHIAL (for their own employees); GHIAL discharges the service tax on the invoices raised by them for providing such services and classified the services under Airport Services; Revenue has not disputed the discharge of service tax by GHIAL under Airport Services nor there is any Show Cause Notice was issued GHIAL till date holding that tax discharged by the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2016 (44) STR 258 (Tri. Ahmd)], all these decisions are in respect of the availment of CENVAT credit on the various input services which were according to Revenue mis-classified by the service provider. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Newlights Hotels and Resorts Ltd., considered the various case laws after reproducing the ratio of the judgment in the case of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd., [2010 (259) ELT 176 (Mad.)], the Bench in para No. 5 following the judgment of the Hon ble High Court and of the Apex Court held as under: 5. In view of the above interpretation of law made by the Courts, including the Apex Court, no option is left with the Revenue to change the classification/ assessments of the services at the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|