9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Bombay in the case of Ultra Tech Cements [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - rent a cab or bus service - Board circular no. 943/4/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011 - Held that: - the circular states that The credit on such service shall be available if its provision had been completed before 1.4.2011 - the credit of service tax for the period prior to 01.04.2011 would be admissible. CENVAT credit - service used in the residential colony - Held that: - These activities are not even remotely connected to the manufacture of final products and thus credit of the same cannot be allowed. CENVAT credit - service tax availed on repair and maintenance of DG Set of water treatment plant in the factory pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel did not produce evidence. 3. Appeal no. E/86077/17 is against denial of cenvat credit on seven different items, out of which on two items the appellants are not contesting. The first item relates to service in respect of outdoor catering in the canteen of the appellants. From the appeal memo, it is seen that the appellants have contended that the credit for the period up to February 2011 is admissible and from the month of March 2011 onwards, credit is not admissible. Thus is it seen that the appeal is limited to the period up to February 2011. The appellants are maintaining canteen in their factory. In terms of definition of input service, credit in respect of services utilised other than for primarily personal use is admissible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the manufacture of final products and thus credit of the same cannot be allowed. 7. The next issue relates to credit of service tax availed on repair and maintenance of DG Set of water treatment plant in the factory premises. It is seen that the impugned order records that the appellants have relied on numerous decisions of various forums in support of their claim to credit. The impugned order does not discuss any reason for not granting the benefit of said decisions. The order in Para 6 summarily rejects the credit and pleas of the appellants regarding extended period of limitation without granting any cogent reasons. In these circumstances, I find that the impugned order is not a speaking order in respect of these items. The part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it do not find any merit in the plea of the appellant because they are having the detail inventory of input services and separate bills i.e. bills of factory area and bill of residential areas. The audit pointed the irregularity by inspecting the said bills whereas the appellant having awareness of ineligibility of credit kept silent being it is pertaining to small portion and mixed with eligible amounts of credit till the audit raised the objection. The appellant actually dealing with the factual incidents and relevant documents for years together knowingly did not avail the said wrong credit after July 2011 but did not rectify their mistake till it was detected by Audit. The appellant cannot deny their responsibility by merely saying thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
