2020 (3) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal and also by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS MUNDRA PORT SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. [ 2010 (5) TMI 483 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and this judgment has been followed by this Tribunal consistently. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the impugned orders set aside to the extent it disallowed the CENVAT credit for input services utilized in construction of immovable property which have been further let out for the period upto 31.03.2016.
HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Jatin Christopher, Advocate For the Appellant Shri P. Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted to Central Excise duty nor service tax. Input credit of service tax can be taken only if the output is a 'service' liable to service tax or a 'goods' liable to Excise duty and hence it appeared that allowing/availment of any credit against services such as Management Consultancy Services, Civil engineering Services, Interior decorators, etc. was incorrect inasmuch as these input services were nothing but part and parcel of construction activity. Therefore, it appeared that all these input services do not appear to have any nexus with the output service and cenvat credit availed on these services amounting to ₹ 3,83,35,461/- appeared ineligible. Hence it appeared that these services are not covered under the definition of input ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tput services, they do not fall within the ambit of definition of 'output service' as defined in the erstwhile Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; that therefore, credit of ₹ 3,97,52,322/- taken by the appellant appeared to be irregular. Show-cause notices were issued and separate Orders-in- Original were issued and amount of input credit was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before the Tribunal. 2.3. In both the appeals, appellants were directed to deposit 7.5%. as statutory amount required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Against which, the appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court by order dt. 17/12/2019 in WA No 1403 of 2016 and WA No.1404 of 2016 hav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X