TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 (12) TMI 659 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], credit was allowed on MS Channels, MS Beams, MS Joists, HR Coils, HR Plates, Woven wire mesh etc., which are used in fabrication of capital goods - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - input services - services rendered by the architects - Held that:- It is clearly excluded in view of the definition of input service under Section 2(l) after 01.04.2011 - credit not allowed. The amount of interest and penalty get modified accordingly. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/22083/2014 - A/30587/2018 - Dated:- 24-5-2018 - Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri R. Muralidhar, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms B. V. Siva Naga Kumari, Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er back to original adjudicating authority with specific direction to the appellant to produce any evidence to argue their case and with direction to the Adjudicating Authority to give a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case in thereafter issued a reasoned order. 3. Accordingly, a Learned Commissioner of Central Excise has passed Order-in-Original (denovo No. 4/2014) dated 30.01.2014 allowing the CENVAT credit of ₹ 44,78,259/- and confirming a demand of ₹ 1,05,056/- on capital goods on ₹ 23,309/- on services and 4,73,808/- as CENVAT credit. She also demanded interest and imposed penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This appeal is against the denovo order of the Commissioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Madras High Court relied by appellant. The present disputed amount is second instalment of credit in the same items and hence there is no reason to deviate from the earlier order passed by this Tribunal in respect of the earlier 50% of the capital goods. 5. As far as (b) above is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that this CENVAT credit pertains to availment of credit during the subsequent period on the issue already decided by this Bench and hence this credit may be allowed. 6. Learned Commissioner (AR) strongly opposed this and reiterated the arguments in Para 32 of the Order-in-Original denovo of Commissioner (Appeals) which reads as follows: 32. In the notice it is also alleged that an amount of cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (AR) pointed out that the services of this architect were taken for construction of the shed and other buildings which is clearly excluded as recorded by Learned Commissioner in Order-in- Original hence the appellant is not entitled to service tax credit of this amount. It is also pointed out the Rule 2(l) was amended after 01.04.2011 (which is the relevant period) removing the services used in relation to setting up of an office or factory premises from the entitlement of CENVAT credit. In the instant case, the invoice clearly shows that it was dated 08.04.2011 and the estimated cost of project is ₹ 1,80,00,000/- and the project is for construction of factory and non factory buildings at Manthralayam and not for modernization or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore find credit of ₹ 1,05,056/- on these items is permissible. As far as the input service tax credit of ₹ 12,978/- on the services rendered by the architects vide their invoice No. 1 dated 08.04.2011 is concerned, I find that it is clearly excluded in view of the definition of input service under Section 2(l) after 01.04.2011. I, therefore, find that the appellant is not entitled to input service tax credit on this amount. 9. As the amount of ineligible CENVAT credit is reduced the penalty and interest elements also get reduced proportionately. Accordingly, the Order-in-Original is modified at following: a) CENVAT credit of ₹ 4,73,808/- being the second installment of 50% of capital goods on MS Beams, HR Coils etc., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
