2018 (9) TMI 831 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – works contract service after 01.04.2011 – Held that:- It is not in dispute that appellant had availed CENVAT credit on works contract 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.
–
Appellant 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. 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.
–
Appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal Nos: E/31216/2017, E/30038-30039/2018 E/30039/2018 – A/31008-31011/2018 – Dated:- 16-8-2018 – Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
luded from the scope of input service in so far as they are used for (a) Construction of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof (or) (b) Laying foundation or making of the structures for support of capital goods except for the provision of one or more of these specified services. 4. The appellant herein is a manufacturer of sugar and had availed credit on the input services rendered on works contracts. Show Cause Notices were issued seeking to deny the credit and recover the same along with interest invoking the extended period of limitation. It is also proposed to impose a penalty on the assessee. 5. The learned counsel for the 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 structu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rks contract services which were specifically excluded. It is his further submission that the ER-1 returns and ST-3 returns do not require the appellant to give invoice wise details of the credit taken. It is the appellant s responsibility to ensure that he takes credit as per the eligibility. In this case the appellant had taken credit in violation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with the evident intent to evade payment of duty by taking ineligible credit. Therefore, he argued that demand as well as penalty is sustainable. I have considered the arguments on both sides. It is not in dispute that appellant had availed CENVAT credit on works contract 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 al
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =