9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period 2007-08 and 2008-09. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellants and after due process of law, the original authority disallowed the credit of Rs. 3,96,934/- and ordered recovery of the same along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Shri V. Ravindranath explained the details of the credit disallowed by the adjudicating authority. They are as follows: - i. Rs. 1,79,856/- was disallowed on the MS items which were used for fabrication of storage tanks. ii. Rs. 1,81,460/- was disallowed as credit availed on input services of interior decoration of their office at Hyderabad. iii. Rs. 78/- was disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repair services and though availed for the corporate office at Hyderabad, the credit ought to have been allowed. The credit of Rs. 9,681/- was availed for modernization of the dining hall and credit of Rs. 10,699/- and Rs. 3,028/- were also availed for similar civil construction works. The credit of these amounts have been denied on the ground that the invoices are not proper and the appellant has submitted only letters issued by M/s. Reddy Babji. Learned counsel submitted that the period being prior to 01/04/2011, the credit on employees group insurance policy, group personal accident policy ought to have been allowed. Further that though Rs. 4,556/- was aviled by the appellant for cleaning services rendered by Shri V. Pradeep Kumar, Civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring produced several documents to contend that the credit availed is proper. On perusal, it is seen that credit of Rs. 1,81,460/- is availed for interior furnishings of the premises at Hyderabad. Though in the said document, certain works relating to interior fit out works, painting, dismantling works etc. are shown, it also contains amount spent for furniture. The purchase of furniture cannot be considered as a service. The amounts are shown as composite and service tax paid on the entire amount. For the same reason, I hold that the credit disallowed by the Commissioner on this count is legal and proper. The appellant has paid service tax towards works contract service for modification of dining hall and other repair works to the tune of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
