9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 2007 to February 2009 and equal amount of penalty imposed on them. In both the cases, the substantive demands have resulted from denial of CENVAT credit on 'works contract services', 'catering services', 'event management services' etc. which were used by the company for purposes such as repairs/maintenance of residential colony and other purposes connected with such colony. The residential colony is situated away from the factory. No integral connection between the above services and the appellants business of manufacturing and marketing petroleum products has been disclosed before me. In the case of Commissioner Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010(260) ELT 369 (Bom.)], the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court interpreted the definition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent assessee, manufacturer of soda ash, has provided residential quarters for its workers. In such residential quarters, the assessee also provided security services. Can such security services be stated to be service used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Our answer has to be in the negative. We do not see any connection between the security service provided by the manufacturer in the residential quarters maintained for the workers as having any direct or indirect relation in the activity of manufacture of the final product. This is also the view of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manikgarh Cement (supra). 2. I am inclined to follow the above ruling, cited by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. Not even a specimen copy of the service tax return, nor even a specimen extract from CENVAT credit register has been produced. The plea of limitation, therefore, remains unsubstantiated. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. has not pleaded financial hardships. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel claims that the appellant had, in fact, reversed an amount of Rs.2,01,319/- in CENVAT account on 01/11/2010. It is submitted that this reversal was not taken into account by any of the lower authorities. After a careful perusal of the records, I find that such a claim is being made for the first time before this Tribunal. Had the appellant in fact reversed the aforesaid amount, they would have stated the same before the adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
