Lavgan Dockyard Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1303 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (27) G. S. T. L. 539 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 9-7-2018
APPEAL NO: ST\/85884\/2018 – A\/88290\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Jay Chadha, C.A. for appellant
\nShri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nThis appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Pune.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing various taxable services, defined under the Finance Act, 1994. For providing the taxable services, the appel<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n t amounting to Rs. 1,22,737\/- was disallowed and the appellant was directed to pay interest on such disallowance amount of Cenvat Credit. Besides, the adjudication order also imposed penalty under the provisions of Rule 15 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with sub-Section (1) of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed on the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n vice sustains. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lavgan Dockyard Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, KolhapurService Tax2019 (1) TMI 1303 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (27) G. S. T. L. 539 (Tri. – Mumbai)CESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 9-7-2018APPEAL NO: ST\/85884\/2018 – A\/88290\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Jay Chadha, C.A. for appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER … Continue reading “Lavgan Dockyard Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16352\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n4. In this case, the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on insurance service for insuring it employees. The definition of input service contained in Rule 2 (l) of the Rules specifically excludes life insurance <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. I find that the irregularly availed Cenvat Credit had not been used\/utilized by the appellant for payment of service tax on the output services provided by it. In absence of utilization of Cenvat Credit, it cannot be said that there is loss of revenue to the Government exchequer, which can be compensated by way of payment of interest. Further, the Cenvat Credit particulars availed by the appellant were reflected in the books of accounts, which were verified by department for confirming the adjudged demand. Since the appellant had not suppressed any material particulars with regard to availment of Cenvat benefit, I am of the view that the provisions of Rule 15 (3) read with sub-Section (1) of Section 78 of the Act cannot b<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n