9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. - Service Tax Appeal No. 51839 of 2015 - ST/A/53528/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 31-12-2018 - Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri Manish Gaur Ms Shagun, Advocates for the Appellants Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: C L Mahar: The brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing services in relation to erection, commissioning and installation work (hereinafter referred to as ECI) to various electricity boards. The assessee has been paying Service Tax in respect of output services namely, erection, commissioning and installation services. Apart from the ECI services, the appellant was also awarded contracts for supply of goods used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.; (ii) The commission agents services relating to supply of material cannot be construed as input service because their services were not used in providing taxable output service or for manufacture of goods; and (iii) The appellant has willfully suppressed the facts of availment and utilization of such cenvat credit. 2. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 10.2.2015 wherein the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed an equal amount of penalty as per the provisions of Rule 15 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 78 of the Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e law relied by learned Counsel are as follows: (i) Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CST, Jaipur 2016 (10) TMI 578-CESTAT-New Delhi]; (ii) Commissioner vs. Lakshmi Technology Engineering Industries Ltd.[2011 (2) TMI 1275-CESTAT-Chennai]; (iii) R G Pigments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2017 (9) TMI 421-CESTAT New Delhi]; (iv) CCE, Pune vs. SS Engineering [2016 (40) TMI 108-Bombay HC]; and (v) CCE vs. V Thangavel Sons (P) Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 895 CESTAT-Chennai] 5. We have also heard the learned DR who has reiterated the findings given in the Order-in-original. 6. We find that the matter is no longer res integra as the issue has already been decided in the appellants own case by Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit has been availed by the appellant on commission agent services as well as insurance services. The commission agent services have been used by the appellant for procurement of Turnkey orders from DISCOMS. Since part of such orders are for supply of goods manufactured by the appellant and the other part is for supply of services, such services qualify as input service. This view is also supported by several decisions. For example in the case of Commissioner vs. Ambika Overseas reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 348 (P H), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal in which it was held that overseas commission agents used for procuring orders would be covered under input service. Similar views have been held by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
