2017 (12) TMI 1441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Consultancy Service received by the appellant during the said period - credit remains allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Prinsen Philip, Advocate, For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR, For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on consultancy services on the ground that the project for which consultancy was received was fully abandoned without its implementation. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Government of Kerala undertaking and has got two unit on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same vide the impugned order; hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order denying the CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on consultancy charges is unsustainable in law. He further submitted that the service tax was paid for availing the consultancy services which was availed long before the decision to abandon the project work. Even in the show-cause notice, the department admits that the consultancy charges were for preliminary expenditure incurred in connection with the expansion work. He further submitted that the entire demand is time barred as there is no suppression .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... zed in October 2004 to August 2006 and it is not the case of the Revenue that the credit was wrongly availed. Further, I also find that the CENVAT credit once rightly availed is indefeasible and subsequent development of abandoning of plant will not make the appellant liable to reverse the CENVAT credit which was rightly availed by them. Further I also find that the CENVAT credit once rightly availed is indefeasible and subsequent development of abandoning of plant will not make the appellant liable to reverse the CENVAT credit which was rightly availed by them. Further I also find that the appellants have been filing the ER1 returns regularly in which they were showing the CENVAT credit availed by them. Further, I also find that the credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X