Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Punjan Builders Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-II

2015 (12) TMI 490 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of abatement claim - Construction services - benefit of abatement of 67% - Assessee had also availed the benefit of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- Appellants availed the CENVAT Credit of ₹ 22,981.00 and also availed the abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST, dt.01.03.2006. There is no dispute on the fact that upon detection, of the mistake, the Appellant reversed the credit. The Joint Commissioner (Preventive) Vadodara dropped the proceedings. - Assessee has necessarily to comply w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowed the appeal on this issue. - present case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/167/2008-DB - Order No. A/11614 / 2015 - Dated:- 5-11-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Ms.Harpinder Sandhu, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand of Service Tax of ₹ 9,58,749.00 alongwith interest and to impose penalty. The Appellants submitted before the Adjudicating authority that by mistake of law, they availed CENVAT Credit of ₹ 22,981.00 which was reversed by them after detection. 2. The Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice dt.22.10.2007. In revision proceedings under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994, by the impugned order, the Commissioner, Vadodara II set aside the Adj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appellant reversed the credit. The Joint Commissioner (Preventive) Vadodara dropped the proceedings. 4. For the proper appreciation of the case, we reproduce the findings of Joint Commissioner (Preventive) as under:- I find that the Assessee has availed the abatement of 67% as per Notification No.1/2006-ST, dt.01.03.2006 as well as availed the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on input service which makes them ineligible for the benefit of the benefit of exemption Notification No.1/2006-ST, dt.0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lows, B/H MIPCO, Narmada Nagar, Bharuch has contravened the provisions of Section 68 and 70 of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 6 and Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 without any prima facie intention to evade payment of Service Tax. Further, they had contravened the provisions of Notification No.1/2006-ST, dt.01.03.2006 inasmuch as they had wrongly availed the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid in respect of input services. But once they came to know the mistake, they have reversed the CENVAT Credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ally avail CENVAT Credit of a small amount of ₹ 22,981.00 which in turn, would make them ineligible for a major benefit of abatement as provided by the exemption notification. Therefore, it appears that the proceedings initiated in the instant show cause notice are liable to be dropped. However, the assessee is required to be more careful in future. 5. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise observed that the Assessee has necessarily to comply with the conditions of notif .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issue. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 10. As regard the second issue, both sides have relied on the judgments including the Supreme Courts judgment. We have considered all the judgments. In the case of Amrit Paper, the facts were that the manufacturer had availed the credit at the time of clearance of the goods and had suo-motu reversed/availed exemption later on almost after 15 months when it claimed refund of MODVAT Credit. In the case of Eagle Flask, it was he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version