9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these machines the appellant avail services of sub-contractor. The credit in respect of services availed from sub-contractor has been denied to them. He pointed out that they have given the entire correlation between the output services provided by them, the duty payable on out put service as well as the input service availed by them in a detailed manner however the same has been ignored by the lower authority. 3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have given entire co-relation of out put service with the input services availed by them is reproduced below : The aforesaid co-relation submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g an "output service" or used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of the final products from the place of removal. In the present case, the services of erection, installation and commissioning were arranged by the appellant through other service providers at various sites of their clients on their behalf. I find that in respect of contract No. TC/M/AGT-945 dated 24.08.2007 of M/s SAIL, (Bokaro Steel Plant) for the project" Replacement of HCI Fume Exhaust System of Pickling Line No.2" (involving credit of Rs.2,85,255/- out total wrongly availed credit of Rs.4,23,078/-, the appellant had provided the service vide Invoice No. L00009 dated 17.12.2007 to M/S SAIL. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, I conclude that the Appellant are not eligible to take credit of Service tax paid by the service providers, as they have failed to conclusively show that they received the said service relating to the service provided by them to their clients so as to enable them to avail the credit. It is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the said service provided by the other service providers is an input service for them. In the facts of the case, the ultimate customer is the receiver of the said service and thereby the said service would be 'input service' for them [customer] and not for the appellant as they have not received any such service. The CBEC Circular dated 23.08.2007 relied upon by the appellant deals with l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
