9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The dispute in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant for cenvat credit on "construction service". The appellant engaged M/s.United Project Construction Ltd. in contract to do civil construction works for Pilot Plant Building. The dispute in the present case relates to an amount of Rs. 43,28,107/- of service tax availed as credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted before 1.4.2011. An invoice for the consideration along with a tax was raised on 25.03.2011. The appellant made payment to the service provider on 28.03.2011. As such, the construction service was raised by the appellant prior to 1.4.2011. (b) The Revenue did not contest the final aspect of the above dates. The Commissioner (Appeals) raised certain doubts regarding the date of purchase ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. (d) Reliance was placed on the Board's Circular dated 29.04.2011 and also certain case laws in support of the submissions of the appellant. 3. Ld.AR submitted that the construction service was excluded from the eligibility for the credit purpose w.e.f. 1.4.2011. Reiterating the findings recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals),ld. AR submitted that after 1.4.2011, the appellant is not enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant had produced substantial evidence in the form of invoice raised by the provider, which was dated 25.03.2011, the payment made for such invoice by the appellant on 28.03.2011 and the certification by Architect dated 26.03.2011. Regarding discrepancy in the amount between the purchase order and the invoice dated 25.03.2011, the appellants clarified that the invoice based on the running bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
