Pappu Construction Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Jabalpur
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 366 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 4-12-2018
Excise Appeal No. E/52523/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53351/2018
Service Tax
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Mr. Z.U. Alvi, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Mr. K. Poddar, DR
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
The Appeal in hand has been filed being aggrieved of Order of Commissioner(Appeals) No. 18-19 dated 20.04.2018. Relevant facts for the adjudication are that the appellants are registered for providing services in the category of mining of mineral, oil or gas services. On the basis of intelligence gathered, it was noticed that the appellant is providing the said services to Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called as Corporation), however is not discharging the whole tax liability. Notices were accordingly served to the appellant to provide the requisite do
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ppellant proposing the aforesaid demand and a late fee of Rs. 7,200/-. In addition, the interest at the appropriate rate and the penalty of the same amount was also proposed to be levied. The said Show Cause Notice was initially adjudicated vide Order No. 22-34 dated 12.01.2018 vide which the demand of alleged short amount of service tax of Rs. 11,43,240/- was dropped. However, all the remaining demands were confirmed. Being aggrieved, the Appeal was filed before Commissioner(Appeals) who vide the Order under challenge has upheld the initial Order. Still being aggrieved, the Appeal is before this Tribunal.
2. We have heard Mr. Z.U. Alvi, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. K. Poddar, Ld. DR for the Department.
3. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that during the relevant period of time, appellant were executing mining contracts at Hirapur, District Sagar as well as at Megh Nagar District Jhabua. For the purpose of excavation of rock phosphate and crushing the same, appellant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Del.). He has also relied upon Circular No. 211/45/96-CX dated 14.05.1996 clarifying about the problem faced in availing modvat in the name of registered office/ head office but actually availed by the factory. The Order to the extent of denial of the availment of cenvat credit and imposition of late fee alongwith the penalties is therefore prayed to be set aside, Appeal is prayed to be allowed.
4. Ld. DR has justified the Orders of adjudicating authorities below. It is impressed upon that the proposed demand has partially been dropped by the authorities below. The demand confirmed has sufficient reasoning in the Order under challenge. There is the apparent non compliance of Rules 9, 7 and 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 on part of the appellant. There is no infirmity, as alleged, in the Order under challenge. Appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record, we are of the opinion that the demand of alleged short levy has already been
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ines though were purchased for Megh Nagar site however were diverted to Hirapur site. The ST-3 returns for both the sites are not denied to be produced by the appellant on record. Perusal thereof makes it abundantly clear that the cenvat credit for both these machines has been availed only with respect to Hirapur site. There is no dispute about these machines to be the capital goods used for providing the output service. The only controversy remains is as to whether the invoices bearing different address of the service provider than the one for which the credit has been availed is the violation of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004. We are of the opinion that the service provider for both the sites is same and has been commonly registered for both the sites. In the given circumstances, the credit is rather permissible to be taken on both these machines by the appellants in another unit irrespective of the invoices showing the different address of the appellant. We draw our support from the decision o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed in captive consumption for manufacture of final product merely because original and duplicate copy as required by Rules were lost, the claim could not be defeated. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case Kamakhya Steel Vs. C.C.E. 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 has consistently held that once duty paid character of goods, receipt at works and utilisation thereof stood established, credit ought not to be denied on procedural lapses/ minor deviations. Based thereupon we are of the opinion that findings of Commissioner(Appeals) that the invoices produced by appellant are not containing correct address of the appellants registered premises but are having address of their other premises has wrongly been considered as a ground to deny the availment of cenvat credit on the capital goods used by the appellants for providing the output service. Similarly, the findings about absence of all the particulars as prescribed under Central Excise Rules, 2002 / Rule 9(2) of CCR, 2004 are not sustainable.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =