9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules only on the utilisation of such credit for payment of output service tax, in accordance with Rule 3(4) (e) of Cenvat Credit Rules. It is further noticed that Rule 14 has been invoked only on the event of utilisation of accumulated cenvat credit. Extended period of limitation - Penalties - HELD THAT:- The appellant has rightly utilised this accumulated cenvat credit for payment of output service tax of ₹ 3,98,150/-, which has been objected to by the Revenue and further demand on this score is set aside - extended period of limitation is not attracted in the facts and circumstances as the issue being wholly of interpretation. Accordingly, penalties imposed under Rule 15 of CCR as well as under Section 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in construction of mall. The total credit availed on such services was ₹ 65,22,027/-. 4. Appellants also availed credit of ₹ 41,955/- on input services used for rendering works contract services to M/s.Fiza Services (P) Ltd. This credit is not the matter of dispute. 5. Service tax of ₹ 4,40,105/- on works contract service was discharged out of cenvat credit accumulated with the appellants. It included ₹ 41,955/- pertaining to input service of works contract and balance ₹ 3,98,150/- from input service of mall (self owned). 6. Consequent to audit, show cause notice dated 25.04.2018 proposed to deny cenvat credit ₹ 65,22,027/- relating to input services of mall, and also demanded ₹ 3,98,150/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) held that service portion of work contract (for construction work) is specifically excluded from the ambit of input service, but there is no restriction with regard to other input services availed for construction of mall. On this issue, he remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-examination. 10. On the issue of double demand of ₹ 3,98,150/-, he held that the liability is on account of building and the credit that was utilised for payment of service tax was not admissible. Therefore, the demand has rightly been made and there is no duplication of demand. 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that the present appeal is only on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that once the credit has been taken in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The same has been objected to by the Department under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules only on the utilisation of such credit for payment of output service tax, in accordance with Rule 3(4) (e) of Cenvat Credit Rules. I further take notice that Rule 14 has been invoked only on the event of utilisation of accumulated cenvat credit. 15. I further find that the appellant has rightly utilised this accumulated cenvat credit for payment of output service tax of ₹ 3,98,150/-, which has been objected to by the Revenue and further demand on this score is set aside. I further hold that extended period of limitation is not attracted in the facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
