TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Invocation of extended period of limitation Held that:- The contracts were signed before 1.7.2003 and bills were raised prior to 1.7.2003. But actually services may have been rendered by them prior to and after 1.7.2003. No delineation of services rendered before 1.7.2003 and after 1.7.2003 has been made. During the arguments, it appeared that such categorization is not available in the records. - On merits there appears to be no doubt the service rendered after 1.7.2003 will be leviable to service tax. However, relying on the case of PT Education and Training Services (2008 (12) TMI 82 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), we hold that as the issue relates to interpretation of provision of law, imposition of penalty and extended period of limitation are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abatement of 67% on the value of Commercial and industrial construction service provided by the appellant in terms of condition of Notification No.15/2004-ST dated 10.6.2004 as amended by Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. The issue was that the exemption provided in above notification was not applicable in cases where credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods had been taken under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. As the appellants had availed credit on inputs, capital goods and input services, the benefit of abatement in terms of notification was denied and demand of ₹ 3,26,378/- for the period April to September, 2006 confirmed and penalties were imposed. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first case, it was held that no credit of duty paid on inputs shall be allowed if the final product is exempted from the whole of duty of excise in terms of Notification No6/2000-CE and Rule 57C erstwhile of Central Excise Rules, 1994. In the second case, it was held that for availing the benefit under exemption notification, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. 8. We have considered the rival contentions. 9. On the first issue, we find that the Maintenance and Repair service was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1.7.2003. The facts on record and adjudication proceedings do not reveal as to when the service was rendered physically under the annual maintenance contract. The contracts were signed before 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the aforesaid clarification by the Department, we see no reason why the assessee cannot make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product. If this debit entry is permissible to be made, credit entry for the duties paid on the inputs utilised in manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manfuacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in manfuacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
