9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (read with Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002). 2. The issue involved in this case is admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods and input services used in the erection of transmission towers and shelters spread all over the country far from the office premises of the appellants. The adjudicating authority held the impugned Cenvat credit to be inadmissible and also held the appellants guilty of wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts. The appellants have contended that the period involved in this case is September 2004 to January 2008 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 22.4.2010. They have been submitting their periodical returns regularly giving all the required details therein. In the said returns, the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit of input services which have not been used for providing taxable output service and hence the same is liable to be recovered under the proviso to Section 73 of the Act; (ii) In the present case it appears that the party knew that taking credit of service tax as such by them was irregular and in contrary to the provisions of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the party has, therefore, wilfully suppressed the facts and deliberately contravened the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules with intent to evade due service tax by way of availing and utilizing undue Cenvat credit. Similarly the adjudicating authority in para 205 of the adjudication order deals with this allegation as under: & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clearly showing therein the impugned credits. They were even regularly audited by the department. The contention of the ld. A.R. that they took centralised registration with effect from 1.10.209 and therefore the period of limitation should be counted there from is devoid of any basis because it is not the Revenues case that prior to centralised registration they were not registered at various places and were not complying with the requirements of filing periodical returns relating to, and disclosing the availment of, the impugned credit. 6. There had been divergent judgments regarding the admissibility of impugned credit in the situations similar to the ones obtaining in this case; some holding that the credit is admissible while some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be mill, DG sets annealing line, EOT cranes, chimney, storage tanks, pollution control/effluent treatment units, utilities like air, steam gas, water etc. Therefore the disputed items are in the nature of components to the said plants as without the columns, beams, cellars, trenches, tunnels, roofing etc. the plant cannot exist and hence, are components of plant. Therefore, invoking Explanation 2 to Rule 2(g) of CCR, credit on cement and steel in any case is admissible. 7. Thus it is evident that there were two divergent views even at the level of CESTAT. It was only when the issue was decided in the year 2010 by the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Vandana Global (supra) that the issue received some clarity. As is evident from the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
