Navabharat Ventures Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam – GST
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 831 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 16-8-2018
Appeal Nos: E/31216/2017, E/30038-30039/2018 E/30039/2018 – A/31008-31011/2018
Service Tax
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
[Order per: P.V. Subba Rao.]
1. These four appeals have been filed by the appellant against the following impugned orders.
Appeal No.
Impugned Order
E/31216/2017
VIZ-EXCUS-002-APP-044-17-18, dt.21.08.2017 passed by CCCE & ST, Visakhapatnam
E/30038/2018
VIZ-EXCUS-002-APP-75-76-77-17-18, dt.12.01.2017 passed by CCCE & ST, Visakhapatnam
E/30039/2018
-do-
E/30339/2018
VIZ-EXCUS-002-APP-117-17-18, dt.08.02.2018 passed by CCCE & ST, Visakhapatnam
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The short point to be decided in these appeals is the eligibility o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
appellant submits that there is no doubt that they had availed CENVAT credit on works contract services during the relevant period. However, the exclusion of service on works contract during the relevant period is confined to the services used for the construction of building or civil structure or a part thereof or laying foundation or making structures for support of capital goods. He submitted detailed list of the bills on which they had claimed credit of tax paid on works contract service and argued that while some of these services clearly fall under the scope of the exclusion category, others do not. On a specific query from the Bench, he submits that invoice wise details were not examined either by the original authority or by the first appellate authority in their orders. On perusal of the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, I find it so. The learned counsel also contested the show cause notice on the grounds of limitation. It is his contention that they have been regularly
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ontract services during the relevant period and that they were not eligible to avail the credit on works contract if they were used for the two purposes specified in the exclusion part of the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENAVT Credit Rules, 2004. Learned Counsel also concedes that they had wrongly taken credit but argues that all the invoices on which they have taken credit do not fall under the exclusion category. I find that this is the factual matter to be verified by the original authority and find it a fit case to be remanded back to him for the purpose. These appeals are remanded back to the original authority with a direction to verify with respect to each invoice in dispute whether the works contract involved falls under the category excluded under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and redetermine the demand and penalty accordingly.
7. These appeals are disposed of by way of remand.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in the open court on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =