9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to Appeal No. ST/567/06 are as follows:— (a) The appellant was putting up 'Rail and Universal Beam mill' and in that connection entered into two agreements with M/s. JFE Corporation, Japan for getting technical assistance and accordingly, received the services. (b) The appellant took service tax registration on 14-10-2002 for the purpose of paying service tax on the Consulting Engineering Services, as recipient of services from M/s. JFE Corpn. The appellant took out a registration on 16-2-2004 for the services of Consulting Engineering Services to be rendered by them. They entered into an MOU dated 5-3-2004 with one M/s. Vallabh Steels for rendering output services. (c) In pursuance of agreement, the appellant, for a period October, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original invoices. (iii) He held that the services received by them is only input service; during the relevant period they were not registered for any output service; that the credit earned on such input services can be utilized only towards payment of tax on the output services. He, therefore, ordered recovery of Rs. 21,56,382 on the ground that the appellant has wrongly debited the said amount from Cenvat account. (iv) During the relevant period (i.e. from 5-3-2004), the value of output service rendered by them was only Rs. 5,00,000 on which service tax of Rs. 40,000 was paid whereas the value of inputs service shown to have been received as to the tune of Rs. 55,79,049. He ordered recovery of Rs. 40,000 holding that the same has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed output service in terms of rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules'. Having paid the service tax, they were entitled to take the Cenvat Credit and that there was no time-limit prescribed for availing the Cenvat credit. Therefore the denial of Cenvat credit was not correct. 4.2 Regarding the value of output services rendered being only Rs. 5,00,000 during the relevant period, compared to the value of input services received being Rs. 55,79,819, it was submitted that the inputs services were not directly co-relatable on a one to one basis to the output services as the input services were useable on a long term basis and did not get used up immediately. 4.3 Regarding the demand of educational cess on service tax amounting to Rs. 43,128, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been taken on the basis of documents issued prior to5-3-2004, the date on which they actually become the output service provider. The date 5-3-2004 has no legal significance to the present case. During the period prior to 5-3-2004, the service received by them is deemed to be an output service for them and hence they are eligible to take the said credit. It has been held that an amount of Rs. 27,564 for the period after 5-3-2004 was taken without producing the original invoices. The receipt of the service and payment of duty on the services so received is not being disputed. In the given circumstances of this case, denial of credit of Rs. 27,564 is also not justified. 5.3 The services received by the appellant are admittedly relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
