Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1459 - CESTAT CHENNAILaying of pipelines for transportation of petroleum products for various petroleum companies - benefit of N/N. 15/2004-ST dt. 10.09.2004 and N/N. 01/2006-ST dt. 01.03.2006 - It was also alleged that appellants had taken credit of duty on capital goods and other inputs and input services during the year 2006-07 - Scope of SCN. Held that:- The issue whether in cases of abatement has been settled in their favour in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 197 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], wherein it has been held that the impugned Notification does not stipulate a condition where non-availment of CENVAT Credit is to be satisfied uniformly in all cases. Scope of SCN - Held that:- The Show Cause Notice dated 06.04.2009 has been issued on the proposition that the assessee cannot avail the simultaneous benefit of Credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as also the exemption under Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. This is specifically indicated in para 3.3 of the Show Cause Notice. However, the discussions leading to the conclusions in the impugned Order take a totally different route - The adjudicating authority proceeds on this tangent and holds that the appellant have not proved with any documentary evidence that they have not availed or taken the CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods/input service in such cases for which they availed abatement - the impugned Order has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. Demand of tax liability related to Credit taken in respect of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service‛ - Held that:- This Bench of CESTAT in the case of M/s/ Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai & Ors. [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI], even for the period post 01.06.2007, the demand relating to indivisible Works Contract will necessarily have to be made only under the category of Works Contract Service, which is not the case here. Appeal allowed in toto.
|