Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 67 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - case of appellant is that the original authority has not verified the true usage of the input service - HELD THAT:- The appellant has produced the invoice wherein it is clearly mentioned that the service was pure labour and did not involve goods. Copies of the invoice are also on record. Further the service tax challan of the vendor also shows that the tax paid was under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service. Further the Service Tax Returns filed by the vendor also shows that those returns were filed under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service and the copies of returns are also on record. Further, the Department has not been able to establish that the input services availed by the appellant falls under Construction Service/Works Contract Service. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellants have availed the cenvat credit in the month of April 2012 and May 2012 and has informed the Department with a letter along with Cenvat Register on 18.06.2012 and the said cenvat credit was noticed by the audit and audit report was issued on 19.12.2012 whereas show-cause notice was issued on 07.11.2014. Further the appellant has produced on record the acknowledgment of RPAD whereby he has informed the Department and also shown in the returns filed by him which clearly shows that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty - the appellants have produced all the copies of invoices, challans and returns and also produced the copies of acknowledgment vide which the Cenvat Register was submitted to the Department on 18.06.2012 - Thus, the entire demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed on merits as well as on limitation.
|