9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit, to that extent - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR-II [ 2017 (4) TMI 1323 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held 'identical issue decided in the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-II [2017 (1) TMI 373 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that in case of any amount retained or discounted after the invoices were issued, the credit need not be changed and full credit of service tax paid to the service provider will be eligible for credit'. The ratio laid down under these Tribunal decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 703/-, the assessee-appellant is before us. 3.2. Being aggrieved with the fact that on account of the re-quantification, denial of CENVAT Credit to the extent of Rs.12,44,37,180/- got dropped at the adjudication stage, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Heard both the appeals together. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee-appellant submits that only as a matter of precaution, the assessee were retaining 10% of the invoice value and ultimately, after being satisfied with the service rendered, this balance of 10% was being released to the vendor. He contends that it is not the case of the Revenue that this 10% was being retained by the assessee-appellant. 5.1. He further submits that the issue is no more res integra; he cites the case-law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibutable to consideration not paid by the appellant. We note, in the present case, the appellants retained a portion of the consideration towards service rendered by the service provider in terms of contract towards performance guarantee. We note, the Board's clarification is applicable to the facts of the present case. Identical set of facts came up for decision before the Tribunal in many cases. In appellant's own case the matter has been decided holding that no reversal of credit under Rule 14 can be ordered in such situation. The reference can be made to the following decision: - 1. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-II, Final Order No.A/53738/2016-EX(DB). 2. CCE, Jaipur-ll vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.- 2014 (34) STR 440 (Tri.:-Del. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full amount of service tax to the contractors at the time of retaining the amounts and took the cenvat credit of the entire service tax so paid. The retained amounts were paid at the end of the stipulated period after completion of the project. The department, however, invoked the provisions of Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which reads as under: 7. The Cenvat credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day which payment is made of the value of input service and the service tax paid or payable as indicated in invoice, bill or, as the case may be, challan referred to in rule 9. .......... 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that the issue has come up before the Tribunal in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
