9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are manufacturers of excisable goods viz., steam turbines falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant had availed input service tax credit of Rs. 91,59,919/- in respect of input service bills of various service providers. On verification by the Department Audit, it was observed that the appellant had availed Rs. 32,53,225/- on the service bills raised by their sub-contractors for having provided erection and commissioning services at different sites/locations as utilized by the appellant for payment of duty on turbines and spares cleared during the month of May 2008 and subsequent months. The appellant had cleared turbines and spares to the customers site by adopting transaction value and the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, imposed equal penalty and also demanded the applicable interest. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal, hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and law in the proper perspective and also contrary to the binding judicial precedents on the identical issue. He further submitted that the appellant is registered under the category of erection, commission and installation service and the contract with the customer require appellant to commission and install the goods manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi : 2016 (45) STR 397 (Tri.-Chan.) 4.3 He also submitted that longer period of limitation cannot be invoked and the entire demand is time barred because the show-cause notice was only issued on 18.3.2011, whereas the audit conducted on 10.8.2009 and therefore, the longer period of limitation is wrongly invoked. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * CCE, Mumbai-II: Essel Propack Ltd.: 2015 (323) ELT 248 (SC) * Blue Star Ltd. vs. UOI: 2015 (322) ELT 820 (SC) * Caprihans India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (324) ELT 8 (SC) * CCE vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd.: 2015 (322) ELT 819 (SC) 5. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
