9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioned the claim. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to deny the credit in respect of certain services pursuant to the verification of their ER-2 returns. After due process of law, the original authority allowed part of the credit and confirmed part of the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside part of the demand but, however, confirmed the demand to the tune of Rs. 2,92,957/-. Hence, this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant the learned consultant Shri S. Ramachandran appeared and argued the matter. The details of the credit disallowed by the authorities below are shown in the table as under: (Amount: in Rs.) Sl.No. Name of Input Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and they reversed the credit and filed revised refund claim. Since such credit has been already reversed, the further demand on the said credit cannot sustain. In any case, he submitted that the demand of interest and penalty on such amount cannot sustain since the appellants have already reversed the credit. 4. The learned Authorised Representative Shri R. Subramaniyan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that at the stage of adjudication, the original authority had allowed part of the credit and had only disallowed credit in respect of certain services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the claim of credit to the tune of Rs. 2,92,957/- and had remanded the appeals to the original authority for verification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led such services which are necessary for their output services. The credit in respect of Professional Charges to the tune of Rs. 15,450/- is, therefore, allowed. 8. The amount of Rs. 38,697/- was availed by the appellants for Rent-a-Cab Services. As rightly argued by the learned Authorised Representative, the appellants have not furnished any evidence to show that the motor vehicles used for such services are capital goods for the service provider. As per the exclusion clause in the definition of "input services", I find that the credit availed for Rent-a-Cab Service is not eligible. The demand in this respect is upheld. 9. The appellants originally availed credit to the tune of Rs. 2,34,918/- in respect of local sales and it is argued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
