2017 (9) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... IA No.   Total demand in SCN   Amount disallowed   Penalty   Amount reversed   ST/21082/2015 ST/21083/2015 September 2007 to October 2011 November 2011 to September 2012   No.35/2014 dt.30.01.2015 No.38/2015 dt.30.01.2015   Rs.16,44,271/- Rs.14,50,269/-   Rs.16,19,047/- Rs.12,45,060/-   Rs.16,19,047/- Rs.12,45,060/-   Rs.13,070 (on 21.2.2012 during verification of records-     2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeal No.ST/21082/2015 are taken. Appellants are holders of Central Excise registration certificate and manufacturers of excisable goods viz., bulk drugs under Chapter Heading 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was observed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing the provisions of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. She has also submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedents on the same issue. She further submitted that appellants have received input service viz., repair and maintenance of chemical pipelines, coving and epoxy, electrical maintenance, installation of electrical works, fabrication and erection of machinery, technical manpower supply, wall painting etc. Appellant have also furnished the invoice-wise details of all these input services along with appeal. She further .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the details of input services received and the photographs of the machineries in respect of which input services are received. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that appellants have utilized the services towards construction activity such as removing of earth pit, painting, room partitioning and piping work, electrical services which are out of the purview of definition of input service . He further submitted that the impugned services do not have any nexus directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. Therefore, the availment of CENVAT credit is in contravention of Rule 2(l), 3 and 9 of CCR, 2004. 6. After considering the submissions of both .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X