Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (3) TMI 1422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... audit report. Further when the entire details regarding the transaction was recorded in the books of accounts, there cannot be any allegation of suppression of facts and further the same was verified by audit party - invoking of longer period of limitation is not tenable under law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri M.S. NAGARAJA, Advocate, T. RAJESWARA SASTRY & ASSOCIATAES For the Respondent : Shri K. Murali, Superintendent(AR) ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 29/01/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel blooms and billets falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985 and are availing facilities of CENVAT credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). Appellant placed purchase order dt. 11/03/2011 on M/s. Simech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Chennai (Simech, for short) for erection, commissioning and installation of the Sinter Plant. The Department conducted audit in the unit of the appellant and submitted th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce ineligible for CENVAT credit. He also submitted that the purchase order dt. 11/03/2011 on Simech was for fabrication, transportation to site, erection, commissioning and installation of Sinter Plant in the factory. The description of the work as per the said purchase order reads as "Work Order for mechanical work at Sinter Plant" and in Annexure A to the said purchase order contained the detailed scope of work to be carried out, which includes: a. Fabrication, erection, alignment of technological structure steel, plate work for chimney, ducting etc.; b. Fabrication, erection, alignment, welding of rolled sections; c. Erection and alignment of equipment; d. Installation of colour coated / GI sheeting with screws; e. Painting of technological structures. The entire contract was for fabrication, erection, welding, alignment, transportation of fabricated structures to site, painting (2 coats of primer and 2 coats of paints) and requisite bolts for sheet fixing work. 4.2. Further the invoice issued by the service provider also describes the work executed as fabrication and erection jobs of 33 Sqm Circular Sinter Plant. He further submitted that the nature of service provided b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee to evade the payment of the duty. He further submitted that all the details regarding the purchase order and invoice issued by the service provider were shown to the audit report and was also verified by them and there is no ground for the inordinate delay in the issuance of the show-cause notice. He further submitted that it is a well settled law that when the transactions are recorded in the books of accounts and verified by the audit report, there is no suppression of facts. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad [2003(161) ELT 346 (Tri. Del.)] ii. Calderys India Refractories Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2014(36) STR 102 (Tri. Mum.)] iii. Kamal Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. CST, Jaipur [2012(26) STR 46 (Tri. Del.)] iv. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum [2005(192) ELT 415 (Tri. Bang.)] [Affirmed in Commissioner Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. 2015(323) ELT A73 (SC)] 4.5. He also submitted that it is a settled law that merely based on audit objection, the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked when the other ingredients of suppression of facts or mala fide intention are not present. In the present case, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ort was prepared on 17/05/2012 and as per the audit report, the input service relates to industrial construction service and ineligible for credit. The appellant filed the detailed reply to the audit report explaining the nature of work executed by the service provider M/s. Simech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and also showed the purchase order and the invoices . Further I find that in the annexure to the show-cause notice also, the demand was proposed for the service of fabrication and erection jobs of 33 sqm circular Sinter plant. I also find that the appellant has furnished the invoices connected with site preparation, development work, civil construction service, dismantling work, fixing of roofing sheets in connection with the setting up of Sinter plant on which no CENVAT credit was taken but the same was not considered by the audit party and by the Department before issuing the show-cause notice. Further, I find that the description of the work as per the purchase order clearly states that it is work order for mechanical work at Sinter Plant. Further I find that the service provider had admittedly paid service tax under the category of erection, commissioning and installation of equipm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates