TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be held to have suppressed any fact with intent to avail undue benefit. Nevertheless, no documentary proof is available on record. 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 - Conditional stay granted. - Appeal No.E/411, 412/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2013 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. For the Appellant: Mr. T.V. Ajayan, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) ORDER The stay application filed by the assessee in the first appeal seeks waiver and stay in respect of CENVAT credit of Rs.4,25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of such residential colony, could be considered as a welfare activity but would not qualify as input services for want of nexus with the business of the manufacturer. The Hon ble High Court reiterated that the expression relating to business in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 referred to activities which were integrally related to the business activity of the assessee and not welfare activities undertaken by the assessee. In the case of Commissioner Vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. [2011(22) STR 610 (Guj.)], the question which arose before the Hon ble High Court was whether the security services provided at the residential quarters of workers were covered by the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) ibid. The Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of those cases, any activity undertaken at residential colony was involved. The Tribunal s decision referred to by the learned counsel, indeed, was in relation to an activity undertaken in a residential staff colony, but this decision has no precedent value vis-a-vis the two binding decisions of the High Courts cited by the learned Superintendent(AR). 3. I have not found prima facie case on the ground of limitation either. In one of these cases, the demand is within the normal period. In the other case, it is for the extended period. The argument of the learned counsel is that all the services in question were mentioned in the service tax returns filed periodically during the period of dispute. It is claimed that relevant extracts fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
