TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. At the most the case could have been booked against the appellant for non payment of service tax which Revenue failed to do so, therefore, I hold that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit Admittedly the services availed at the residence of Managing Director have no nexus with the output services provided by the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of Manikgarh Cement [2012 (11) TMI 601 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Therefore, I hold that appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat credit Admittedly, carts were not registered under Motor Vehicle Act, therefore the contention of revenue that these motor vehicle are not capital goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Cenvat credit of ₹ 4,70,490/- was also sought to be denied on the ground that motor vehicles are not capital goods or inputs and water carts and toilet carts which were converted on vehicles chassis are not entitled for Cenvat credit. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat credit along with interest and penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 were also proposed. The show cause notice was adjudicated, demands proposed in the show cause notice were confirmed along with interest and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were also imposed. Penalty under section 77 of Finance Act was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sy are exempted and have been very well discussed by both the lower authorities in the impugned order. Therefore, as per Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit. He further submits that the security services availed at the premises of residence of Managing Director has no nexus with the business of appellant and therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit. On motor vehicle chassis which were used by the appellant for water carts / toilet carts as these are chassis of motor vehicles and for that also he relied upon the final order of on this issue. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. I find that in this case Cenvat credit sought to be denied on three issues: A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri-Del)]. Therefore, I hold that appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,04,884/-. Issue No. 3. The third issue that appellant has taken Cenvat credit on the chassis of motor vehicle which were converted into water carts and toilet carts. Admittedly, these carts were not registered under Motor Vehicle Act, therefore the contention of revenue that these motor vehicle are not capital goods is not acceptable. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit of ₹ 4,70,490/-. 7. Considering the fact that except for the issue of denial of Cenvat credit on input services credit on security service, appellant as succeeded. No penalty is leviable on the appellant. The input service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
