TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant period did not disallow availment of Cenvat credit in respect of input service. As regards the contention that there is no basis to infer that it has recovered an amount of ₹ 1,41,91,440/- towards service tax but deposited only ₹ 71,57,079/-, we find that primary adjudicating authority has taken into account the contention of the appellant and gave a finding as to how those figures were correctly worked out. It has observed that while the appellant started paying service tax under Composition Scheme for works contract service, it continued to recover higher amount of service tax by charging service tax from the customer at 33% of the value. Thus It is clear that as against recovery of ₹ 1,41,91,440/- towards service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod up to 31.5.2007 it had already paid ₹ 1,75,48,646/- although no service tax was leviable during this period in the light of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of L T (2015-SCC-Online-SC-738). The ld. Advocate however conceded that this amount had been recovered by the appellant from service recipients. (ii) The demand which arises as a result of denial of 67% abatement works out to ₹ 3,11,96,509/- for the entire period including the period prior to 1.6.2007. Non-inclusion of the value of free supply material does not disentitle it to the benefit of 67% abatement in view of CESTAT judgement in the case of M/s Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri.-LB). (iii) The demand of ₹ 70,34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at primary adjudicating authority has taken into account the contention of the appellant and gave a finding as to how those figures were correctly worked out. It has observed that while the appellant started paying service tax under Composition Scheme for works contract service, it continued to recover higher amount of service tax by charging service tax from the customer at 33% of the value. Thus It is clear that as against recovery of ₹ 1,41,91,440/- towards service tax it only deposited ₹ 71,57,079/- and retained ₹ 70,34,361/-. Further the challans under which this amount is claimed to have been deposited do not bear any link with the impugned demand nor did the appellant claim so before the lower authorities. 5. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
