9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was related to the invoices which could not be located since the same was debited along with interest before issue of the said Show Cause Notice dated 07/05/2014. Therefore, there was no legal requirement to show cause and adjudicated the same. CENVAT credit in respect of ₹ 53,234/- on works contract service is not allowed. Appeal allowed in part. - E/70479/2017-EX[SM] - A/71299/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Anshul Jain (Deputy Manager) AR, for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.GZB/EXCUS/000/APP/948/16-17 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal are as under:- (i) ₹ 2,27,102/- was related to Cenvat credit of input services used for repair, renovation and modernization of machinery and the same is covered by inclusive definition of input service and therefore the same is admissible. (ii) ₹ 53,234/- was related to Cenvat credit of input services used for repair and renovation of factory building and repairing of outside godown. Reliance placed upon TRU Circular No.128/10/2010-ST dated 24/08/2010 by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not tenable because the said circular has clarified the scope of works contract and did not clarify the scope of input servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was debited along with interest before issue of the said Show Cause Notice dated 07/05/2014. Therefore, there was no legal requirement to show cause and adjudicated the same. I, further, accept the ground of appeal in respect of ₹ 4,068/- which was Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on carry bags which were used for export of Cigarettes. I, therefore, allow appeal of the appellant to the extent of ₹ 2,27,102/- + ₹ 1,30,595/- + ₹ 4,068/- and I reject the appeal in respect of ₹ 53,234/- which was Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on works contract service. Further, I set aside penalty of ₹ 4,15,001/-. In above terms, appeal is partially allowed. (Dictated Pronounced in Court) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
