9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no objection to allow the same - the appellant has followed the proportionate method for availment of credit on common input services. It cannot be said that the appellant has availed any credit on input services used in providing exempted service - Further, the reversal of credit satisfies the requirement of non availment of credit laid down in the Notification No. 1/2006-ST ibid. The procedure prescribed in Rule 6(3A) of the Credit Rules is only to make the provisions of Rule 3 workable. By means of proportionate reversal the requirement of Rule 6(3) has been substantially satisfied. This is also provided in Rule 6(3D) of the Cenvat Credit Rules which was introduced at a later date - benefit of abatement cannot be denied. Demand of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n services which became taxable from 01.05.2011. Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 as amended provides for abatement @ 50% (for short term accommodation services) and 70% (on restaurant services). This abatement is subject to the condition of non availment of credit on inputs, input services and capital goods. Through the impugned proceedings, the Department sought to deny the benefit of abatement under the above notification and demanded payment of service tax at the full rate, for the reason that the appellant was availing cenvat credit on certain input services. Further, in respect of two of the appeals, there was one more issue. The appellant hotel had an open restaurant. The Department was of the view that service tax was lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 3 (SC). Hello Mineral Water (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India - 2004 (174) ELT 422 (All) Commissioner vs. Sanjay Engg. Industries -2016 (43) STR 354 (Raj.) Beekay Engg. Corporation vs. Commissioner -Final Order No. 57761/2017 dt. 09.11.2017 Tree House Hotel Club & Spa vs. Commissioner - Final Order No. 52854/2017 dt. 13.04.2017 5. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue justified the impugned orders. He argued that the appellant is not denying the fact that they have availed cenvat credit on common input services. Hence, it is his submission that the condition specified in the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 is not satisfied and hence the adjudicating authority was justified in demanding service tax without abatement. In respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The utilisation has been restricted in the proportion of turnover of its taxable service to total turnover, by considering the turnover from short term accommodation service as well as restaurant service as exempted service. Further, the proportion was provisionally determined on the basis of the turnover for the previous year and the same was finally determined at the end of the year and adjustment was made for reversal of credit with interest later on. 9. From the above, we note that the appellant has followed the proportionate method for availment of credit on common input services. It cannot be said that the appellant has availed any credit on input services used in providing exempted service. The reversal of credit as above satisfies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
