9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in clause (a) to (g) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are otherwise available on the documents, and submitted same is sufficient for availment of Cenvat Credit as per clause 9(f). An invoice / bill or challan issued by the provider of input service is a relevant document. Proviso (2) reveals that No Cenvat credit under sub-rule (1) shall be taken unless all the particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service Tax rules, 1994, as the case may be. All these particulars are contained in the documents provided by appellant for availing credit. The invoice has not been considered by the department while issuing the show cause notice as well as by the adjudicating authority for the sole reason that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenged in the present appeal are contrary, hence the said order is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto, the appeal is hereby allowed. - HON'BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE Ms. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav , Advocate, Vinod Kumar , Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Kapoor , Authorised Representative ORDER DR. RACHNA GUPTA The present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Original No. 68/2018-19/1234 dated 24.04.2019. The said order has adjudicated show cause notice dated 20.04.2018 as was served upon the appellants. The extended period of limitation has been invoked by the Department while issuing the show cause notice. The details a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus a subsequent follow up show cause notice for the above two mentioned show cause notices. The information for the period in question was provided by the appellant vide their letters dated 15.2.2017, 10.11.2017 , 15.12.2017, 26.2.2018, 27.2.2018 and 14.3.2018. Perusing the said letters and the ST-3 returns of the appellants, department formed an opinion that service tax amounting to Rs.2,22,20,243/- for the taxable service provided in the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 is recoverable from the appellant. The said amount was proposed to be recovered vide Show cause notice No. 965/88/2015 dated 20.04.2018 along with the appropriate interest. The proportionate penalties were also proposed to be imposed. The said proposal has been confirmed vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-11 to 2013-14. The decision in the present case is based on the documents filed by the appellant pursuant to the impugned show cause notice which were different from the documents pertaining to the previous both the show cause notices. No infirmity, however is impressed upon in the impugned order under challenge. Therefore, the impugned order-in-original is prayed to be upheld and appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard both the parties and perusing the records of the present appeal and the Final Order No. 50857-50858/2023 dated 10.7.2023, we observe that the issue involved in the previous appeal as well as in the present appeal are same, which are : (i) Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on Consulting Engine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral public. In the present case, admittedly the services provided by the appellants are towards the constructions of a road meant for use by the general public. The service tax liability is held to have been wrongly fastened. The detailed reasons given in the Final order dated 10.07.2023 are adopted to arrive at these findings. 10. With respect to the allegations of improper documents/ invoices for availing the Cenvat credit, we follow the proviso to Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The proviso clarifies that in case all the particular mentioned in clause (a) to (g) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are otherwise available on the documents, and submitted same is sufficient for availment of Cenvat Credit as per clause 9(f). An invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported as [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)], we hold that extended period has wrongly been invoked. 11. In the light of entire above discussions, we hold that issue is no more res integra and stand already decided by this Bench in its Final Order No. 50857-50858/2023 dated 10.07.2023. The appellant is held not liable for any service tax liability as is alleged. Cenvat Credit availed is held as proportionately availed. The demand is held to have been hit by bar of limitation. The findings in the Order-in-Original as has been challenged in the present appeal are contrary, hence the said order is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto, the appeal is he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
