Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1077 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods used by sub-contractor - sub-contractor was availing composition scheme - The Department was of the view that such cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods was not admissible to the appellant inasmuch as such credits would not have been admissible to the contractor, who has opted to pay the service tax in terms of the Works Contract Composition Scheme - Held that:- It is apparent that goods on which the appellant has availed cenvat credit have been used by M/s Driplex Water for providing the works contract service. It was M/s Driplex Water who has issued purchase order and procured the goods from manufacturer/ dealer. Thus, it was M/s Driplex Water only who could avail the cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs/ capital goods used by them in providing the works contract service to the appellant in view of the definition of works contract service under clause (zzzza) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The inputs/ capital goods used by M/s Driplex Water in the present case cannot be distinguished to be out of the scope of being the work contract service. When the Cenvat credit is not available to the contractor, the said cenvat credit cannot be passed on to the appellant namely M/s Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. Time limitation - Held that:- The fact of availing the benefit of composition scheme by the contractors was very much in knowledge of the appellants. Again the ignorance to the legal consequences thereof cannot be the excuse rather we opine it to be the positive act on part of the appellants committing suppression of facts thereby entitling the department to invoke the extended period of limitation - extended period invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|