TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2012, in terms of which the following order was passed: (a) I hold that the subject items are neither 'capital goods' under Rule 2(a) nor 'inputs' under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and hence CENVAT credit of the duty paid thereon is not admissible to the appellant for the relevant period. (b) I order for recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 5,56,16,995/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. (c) I order for recovery of interest on the amount confirmed at (b) above under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T - MUM and Vamona Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. ST, Pune III - 2015 - VIL - 697 - CESTAT - MUM -ST. to contend that such credit was admissible. (d) As regards the Cenvat credit taken on debit notes amounting to Rs.,292,604/-, he stated that debit note contained the essential particulars required for taking input service credit and therefore, the cenvat credit taken on debit note should be allowed. (e) As regards the component of cenvat credit, of ₹ 2,07,393/- denied on the ground of having been taken twice, he admitted that as per chart on Page 458 - 459 of the appeal papers, the said credit appears to have been taken twice though he said the two entries related to different documents. 3. Ld. A.R. for Revenue on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w: 7. It is obvious from the definition of 'input service' as it stood prior to 11.4.201 and after 1.4.2011 that, in the earlier period there was no restriction on use of the input service for construction of building or civil structure used for providing output service. Reliance on the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. First , the Hon 'ble High Court clearly held that their conclusion is based on the facts and circumstances which fell for their consideration in those appeals. Secondly, because in that case the input services/inputs were used in construction of towers which were held to be immovable property and hence not excisable. And credit was sought on structural items such as iron and steel. Similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt at pages 458-459 of the appeal papers, it is clear that this credit has indeed been taken twice on the basis of same document. Ld. Advocate's contention that the documents were really different is devoid of sustainable merit in the wake of clear entries in the chart on P-458 - 459 of appeal papers. Therefore this amount is held to be inadmissible and recoverable. 8. In the light of the foregoing, we pass the following order: (a) We hold that - (i) cenvat credit relating to capital goods/inputs is not admissible. (ii) extended period is not invocable. (iii) Cenvat credit relating to input service is admissible. (iv) Cenvat credit amount of ₹ 2,92,604/- taken on the basis of debit note is admissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
