TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The final order dated 15-4-2013 was passed by this bench in bunch of appeals filed by the assessees against various orders-in-original. Since it is a common order, all errors which are sought to be rectified by the various applications for rectification of mistakes are also disposed of by a common order. 3. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the following mistakes apparent on the record. (i) That the impugned order is passed against various orders-in original and in the preamble order-in-original No. AHM-CEX-003-COM-024-12 is not mentioned. (ii) The amount of duty liability confirmed on the appellant in all the impugned orders has been incorrectly mentioned in paragraph No. 1.4. (iii) Heading to par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein in the last sentence we have recorded as under :- Accordingly, four show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding inadmissible Cenvat credit totalling ₹ 231,69,61,491/- which were confirmed vide four orders-in original. The appellant is in appeal against the orders-in original . We do find on the face of the record that there is an error, and accordingly we rectify the error in paragraph No. 1.4 and most specifically the last sentence as mentioned hereinabove. The last sentence will read as under :- Accordingly, five show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding inadmissible Cenvat credit totalling ₹ 243,05,43,881/- which got confirmed for an amount of ₹ 198,35,31,958/- vide five or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other service providers, Notification No. 12/2003 does not disallow credit of service tax on such input services and therefore only contractors could have availed the credit. Therefore in such cases if the contractors did not avail the credit, appellant cannot avail. We find ourselves in agreement with this submission. It cannot be said that in respect of input services received by the contractors, appellant is eligible since those are not input services used for providing output service by the appellant but they are used for providing output service by the EPC contractors. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that we had only considered the ineligibility of Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid by the service provider on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have availed the credit. Therefore in such cases if the contractors did not avail the credit, appellant cannot avail. We find ourselves in agreement with this submission. It cannot be said that in respect of input services received by the contractors, appellant is eligible since those are not input services used for providing output service by the appellant but they are used for providing output service by the EPC contractors. It is also made clear that these findings would be applicable only in respect of eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid by provider for services provided to EPC contractors and may not be applicable to the services provided by the service providers directly to the assessee, in respect of Engineering Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
