2019 (3) TMI 40 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services or not – having nexus with output service or not? – purchase of flat for office purpose – It appeared to the appellant that as they are using the premises for business purposes, they availed credit of service tax paid to the builder towards construction of flat/office premises – penalty – Held that:- The said construction service availed by the appellant towards construction of the flat/office premises is not relatable to the output service, they are providing – Appellant are not entitled to the said cenvat credit of ₹ 51,319/-.
–
Penalty u/s 78 of FA – Held that:- The matter is of interpretation of the statute and there is no suppression of facts or malaf
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in providing services like recruiting service, manpower supply service and cleaning services. It appeared to the appellant that as they are using the premises for business purposes, they availed credit of service tax paid to the builder towards construction of flat/office premises. The said credit was taken by the appellant on 31st March, 2014 and disclosed by them in their books of accounts and cenvat registers maintained and also disclosed in the ST-3 Return filed by them. Consequently there was audit dated 26th October, 2016 wherein vide audit note, objection was raised and thereafter vide show cause notice dated 28th December, 2016, it was proposed to demand the cenvat credit availed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
remises from which they are rendering output services, and accordingly they are entitled to the said cenvat credit. The Ld. Counsel further argues that extended period of limitation has been wrongly invoked as they have made proper disclosures in their books of account returns filed with the department, as such prays for appropriate relief in the matter. 5. The Ld. AR for Revenue has relied on impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions I find that the said construction service availed by the appellant towards construction of the flat/office premises is not relatable to the output service, they are providing. 7. Accordingly I hold they are not entitled to the said cenvat credit of ₹ 51,319/-. However, I find that the ma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =