9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is confirmed as fairly conceded by the counsel for the appellant. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/21243/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20079/2019 - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Cherian Punnoose, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in carrying out services of cleaning activities, Business Auxiliary Services, Erection and Commissioning and Transport of Goods b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant against the confirmed demand. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the said appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has wrongly upheld the demand of cenvat credit availed on renting/hiring of motor vehicle on the ground that during the period in dispute there was a specific exclusion in the definition of input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and further the appellants have not produced any proof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENNAI e. CST, Pune Vs. Nihilent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 1049-CESTAT-MUMBAI f. Terex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of GST CE, Salem 2018-TIOL-3555-CESTAT-MAD. 3.1. He also submitted that he has produced on record the registration certificate to show that the motor vehicles are registered in the name of service provider. Learned counsel fairly conceded that he is not contesting the demand of interest of ₹ 77,256/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Six only) on delayed payment of service tax. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital goods. 5. He has however denied the benefit to the assessee on the ground that such motor vehicle are not capital goods for the appellant, cenvat credit availed on the input services of renting of motor vehicle would not be admissible. 6. However, I find flaw in the above interpretation of appellate authority. He has rightly observed that the exclusion is only in respect of that motor vehicle which is not a capital goods. However, he has not extended the benefit to the assessee by observing that the same is not a capital goods for the appellant. A person who is receiving the input services of renting of immovable property, can never avail cenvat credit of duty paid on the motor vehicles and as such motor vehicle can never ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
