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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus The Commissioner, C.C.E & ST, Visakhapatnam

2016 (8) TMI 757 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Cenvat credit - Township security services - security services in question were provided to their residential township which is not in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or clearance of final products - Held that:- the documents produced by the appellants indicate that the security services were provided by the service provider M/s Jayendra Security services only to the factory premises. Neither in the appellant been controverted or disproved. Nor is it the case of the departmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

07/2016 - Dated:- 20-7-2016 - Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri G.PrahIad, Advocate & Shri C.H. Sumanth, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Nagaraj Naik, AR for the Respondent ORDER The facts of these two appeal as put forth by the appellant are as follows. 2. Appellants are manufacturers of Heavy Machinery items and other items falling under various Chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'CETA'). They are availing of CENVAT Credit on inp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issued with a Show Cause Notice proposing interalia recovery of credit amounting to ₹ 95,003/- along with applicable interest and imposition of penalty. Further, on the same issue, the appellants issued with another 14 show cause notices on a periodical basis, the details are as follows: S.No. Period Involved Central Excise Duty [Including Cess] (Rs.) 1 01.06.2007 - 31.07.2007 4,62,623/- 2 01.08.2007 - 31.08.2007 1,07,945/- 3 01.09.2007 - 31.01.2008 4,18,515/- 4 01.02.2008 - 30.04.2008 1,7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

passed the Order-in-Original bearing No. 28/2012 dated 30.11.2012, wherein the ordered the following: a Recovery of ₹ 49,02,682/- towards the Credit availed on ineligible services during the period from March, 2007 to April, 2012 under Rule 14 of the CCR; b. Demand of interest on the amount. c. Imposition of penalty of ₹ 49,02,682/- under Rule 15 of the CCR. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam passed the impugned Order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R on the ground that no wilful mistake or suppression of facts could be attributed to the Appellants in the instant case, apart from a major part of the demand being unsustainable. Hence this appeal 4. During the hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellant, Shri G. Prahlad, made the following main submissions: 4.1 A perusal of both the definitions of the term 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CCR - i.e. the one existing prior 01-04-2011 as well as the one existing with effect fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ervice' on which the Assessee would be entitled to claim CENVAT Credit . 4.3 CENVAT Credit on the impugned service was denied to them by the lower adjudicating authority on the ground that the said service had been provided to the residential colony of the Appellants. They however submit that the impugned security service has been utilized by the Appellants only with regard to the factory premises where manufacture take place, and not on residential premises for workers, as has been mentione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- MAD which held, inter alia, security services to be 'input services' within the ambit of Rule 2(l) of the CCR and held that Credit could be availed on the same. Similar definition was given by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s Kisan Irrigations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported in 2013-TlOL-403- CESTAT-MUM. 5. On behalf of the department, the learned AR Shri Nagaraj Naik, vehemently opposed the application and contended that the security services .....

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