Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 1339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5 when physical hearing was last scheduled to 22.09.2015. On going through the reply to the show-cause notice but no reference is made in the said reply that the new plant is located away from the present factory of the Appellant, though a distinction between plant and factory was attempted therein. It is apparently for this reason that learned Commissioner, after conclusion of physical hearing had issued a letter to the Appellant on dated 09.10.2015 seeking its response on the location where services were provided and the place where setting of new plant was progressing and the activities to be undertaken in the same plant. The reply though receipt after passing of the order by the Commissioner, going by its content as available in page 25 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Tantia, Jt. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI Denial of CENVAT Credit of ₹1,65,49,165/- for the period from April, 2009 to May, 2012 on service tax paid on various input services like construction, site formation, consultancy, repair and maintenance etc. and order for its recovery alongwith interest and equal penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Raigad, his above referred order, is assailed by the assesse/Appellant in the present appeal. 2. Brief fact of the case, as revealed from the appeal memo and other documents available on record, is that original Assessee M/s. Welspun Maxsteel Ltd., had its factory located at Salav, PORevdanda, Raigad-Maharashtr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ture of services on which credits were denial and bifurcating the amount for the pre and post amended CENVAT Credit Rules w.e.f. 01.04.2011, learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Rajesh Ostwal submitted that for both periods prior to 01.04.2011 and thereafter, in view of express provision and judicial decisions mentioned in another table at Sr. No. 11.1 of the written submission that forms part of the record, credit was admissible for construction consultancy service, repair maintenance, security service, manpower supply service, hiring service etc. and Appellant had rightly availed those. He further submitted that the amendment was effected from 01.04.2011 for construction service and in view of Board Circular No. 943/4/2011- CX dated 29.0 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies etc. for land development work for its new project at Nidhi and Mithekhar Village for setting up of a new plant and availed inadmissible CENVAT Credit of ₹1,65,49,165/- that was contrary to the definition contained for inputs service under Rule, 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner and has drawn our attention to the reply received from the concerned Commissionerate, in response to our query regarding issue of the order by Commissioner without waiting for the reply of the Assessee-Appellant to the query made to it. He has also informed that Appellant had not even replied to the show-cause notice for more than a year till the last dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry was attempted therein. It is apparently for this reason that learned Commissioner, after conclusion of physical hearing had issued a letter to the Appellant on dated 09.10.2015 seeking its response on the location where services were provided and the place where setting of new plant was progressing and the activities to be undertaken in the same plant. The reply though receipt after passing of the order by the Commissioner, going by its content as available in page 25 to 28 of the appeal memo, it can be considered as a cryptic reply for the reason that para 2.3 of its reply letter reveals that the plant was still in proposal stage which can be considered as forward integration. There is no reference in the said reply letter that the plan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates