TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.3.2011), there were no restriction imposed for not taking Cenvat credit on the construction service. Thus, the credit should be allowed to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/51414/2017-SM - A/51592/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Bimal Jain, C.A. - for the appellant Shri H.C. Saini, D.R. - for the respondent Per S.K. Mohanty : This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, falling under Chapter sub-heading 22011020 of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction activities were specifically excluded from the purview of the input service with effect from 1.4.2011. Thus, the department contended that since the credit was taken after 1.4.2011, the same should not be available to the appellant as per the amended definition of input service, with effect from 1.4.2011. The show cause notice issued in this regard, was adjudicated vide order dated 6.2.2013, wherein the adjudicating authority has dropped the proposals made in the show cause notice. The said adjudication order was appealed against by Revenue before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demands proposed in the show cause notice. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has issued invoice dated 14.3.2011, claiming an amount of ₹ 4,49,18,095.03 along with service tax of ₹ 21,65,924.95/-. Upon scrutiny of such invoice vis-a-vis., the work completed pursuant to contract, the architect firm vide the certificate dated 6.3.2011 has recommended for payment of ₹ 3,87,26,491.03 and service tax of ₹ 19,54,239.02. After payment of such amount to the contractor, the appellant had taken Cenvat credit as per the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The invoice issued by the contractor shows that the same was issued prior to 1.4.2011 and it is obvious that the description of work mentioned in the said invoice was completed prior to 1.4.2011. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
