9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-078-2017-18 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Vadodara. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had availed credit of Service Tax paid amounting to Rs. 12,27,760/- on the basis of an invoice/ bill No. 01 dated 31.03.2013 issued by one M/s Swaraj Construction. Alleging that the appellant had registered themselves on 02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the service tax registration of the appellant and consequently, the credit was denied, It is his contention that said service tax registration number belongs to M/s Swaraj Construction and the service tax registration of the appellant is different bearing No. ACHFS7814FSD002. In support he has produced the registration certificates of the service provider as well as service receiver. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action is a sale transaction and the appellant are not eligible to credit of service tax paid against such construction service. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I find that the main objection of the department in denying credit of service tax paid against invoice No. 1 dated 30.03.2013 issued by one M/s Swaraj Construction is that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistration at the time of receipt of services would not debar from availing the credit after obtaining the service tax registration. In the present case, there is no dispute that the services were received and utilized by the Appellant. Further, I find that because the detailed description of service rendered being not mentioned in the input service, it cannot become a sale transaction. On the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
