9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original owner M/s TTSSK. The department in this case, has not disputed the fact that other than the appellant, anybody else has availed the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the taxable service. The learned Adjudicating Authority has acknowledged the fact regarding deduction of the service tax amount from the lease rent paid to the bank and deposit of the same in the Government exchequer by the appellant. Further, the challan evidencing payment of service tax has also been recognized in the Cenvat statute as the proper and valid document. Even if the service tax paid document does not contain the requisite particulars, the competent authority under the statute was empowered to condone such discrepancy and allow the Cenvat credit to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out to the appellant by M/s Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited on rental basis under Lease Deed dated 08.10.2007; that the premises including the plant and machinery were originally belonged to one M/s Tasgaon Palus Taluka Sehakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (TTSSK); that the same were mortgaged to the bank against certain loan and credit facilities; that they were subsequently taken over by the bank under the provisions of SRFAESI Act, 2002 and leased out to the appellant for a period of five years for the purpose of running the sugar mill; that the agreed amount of the lease rent was being paid by the appellant and that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax in the capacity of recipient of Renting of Immovable Prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had only been availed by the appellant and there were no beneficiary, other than the appellant for such credit. He also submitted that the challan, based on which the Cenvat credit has been availed by the appellant is a prescribed document under the Cenvat statute. Thus, he submitted that confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellant is not sustainable. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. It is not the case of Revenue that service tax liability in respect of the taxable service viz. Renting of Immovable Property has not been discharged in the present case. The service tax amount in question was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
