Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 598 - CESTAT CHENNAIDenial of abatement benefit - Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) - availed cenvat credit on various input services - period December 2008 to March 2010 - disallowance of credit on various input services in the nature of insurance services - Penalties. Denial of abatement benefit - Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) - availed cenvat credit on various input services - period December 2008 to March 2010 - HELD THAT:- The dispute with regard to denial of benefit of abatement itself establishes that the contracts are composite in nature which involves both element of supply of goods as well as rendering of services. The decision in the case of REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] would then apply and the demand therefore cannot sustain, where it was held that For the period after 1.6.2007, service tax liability under category of ‘commercial or industrial construction service‟ under Section 65(105)(zzzh) ibid, ‘Construction of Complex Service‟ under Section 65(105)(zzzq) will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of services‟ simpliciter - thus, the demand of differential service tax under commercial or industrial construction service denying abatement cannot sustain and requires to be set aside Disallowance of credit on various input services in the nature of insurance services - HELD THAT:- The period involved is prior to 1.4.2011 when the definition of “input service” had wide ambit as it included the words “activities relating to business”. The decisions of various forums have held that the said services would be eligible for credit. We hold that the appellant has established that the services were availed for providing output services and therefore is eligible for credit. The denial of credit is without basis and cannot be justified. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant has paid up the non-contested/admitted tax liability. For this reason, we hold that penalties imposed therefore cannot sustain and require to be set aside. The impugned order is modified to the extent of (i) setting aside the differential tax demand of Rs.26,08,254/- and interest and penalties thereon (out of Rs.73,33,337/-) without disturbing the confirmation or appropriation of the remaining demand - disallowance of credit to the tune of Rs.12,24,474/- is also set aside - Penalties are entirely set aside. The appeal is allowed.
|