9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clear that the appellant has declared that they have maintained separate records in their return whereas they have not disclosed that they also are availing credit on common input services availed in the Corporate Office and have not reversed the proportionate amount of credit attributed to the exempted projects - penalty set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. ST/30780/2018 - A/31570/2018 - Dated:- 18-12-2018 - Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri G.S.V. Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri C. Mallikharjuna Reddy, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao 1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 2014 to March 2014. e) An amount of ₹ 2,97,730/- being irregular availment of input service tax credit on ineligible services and excess credit for the period 2012- 13 to 2014-15. f) Why interest should not be demanded from them on the above amounts. g) Why penalties should not be imposed under Rule 15(3) of CCR 2004 and under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. After following due process of law, the lower authority dropped all the demands. However, on an appeal by the Revenue, the first appellate authority has modified the order of lower authority as follows:- (i) Confirmed the demand of ₹ 18,90,121/- holding that the appellant had not maintained separate records as required under Rule 6(2) of CCR 2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posable on appellant. 4. Ld. Representative of the appellant submits that it is incorrect to say that they have not maintained separate accounts for the taxable and exempted projects. In fact, they have maintained separate records for each of their projects which is a fact which can be verified. He further submits that they have produced the details of these accounts before the lower authority as well as the first appellate authority and the lower authority has dropped the demands accordingly, while the first appellate authority has confirmed the same. He also produced their records before the Bench. 5. Ld. DR points out that the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit not only on inputs used in the projects but also on input services use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand submits that in their ST-3 returns, the appellant has clearly indicated that they have maintained separate accounts whereas the facts show that it is impossible even to maintain separate accounts in respect of common input services availed in the Corporate Office. Ld. Representative of the appellant concedes that it is not possible to maintain separate accounts for the services availed in the Corporate Office. 7. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The short point to be decided is whether the appellant had availed credit on common input services and not reversed the proportionate amount of credit or paid 6% of the value of exempted projects under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004. The appellant s arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
