TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. We have heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appeal by the Revenue, filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, is directed against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 04.1.2018. 3. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the CENVAT Credit relating to 'commercial or industrial construction service' can be utilized for payment of service tax on 'renting of immovable property services'? And ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the entire CENVAT credit availed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 1,20,18,840/- including cess from their CENVAT credit account on 23.9.2009 under protest and intimated the same vide their letter dated 24.9.2009. In response to the letter sent by the Department, the assessee, vide letter dated 29.12.2009, stated that an area of 1968.10 sq.meters was leased out to the HLIPL and the proportionate credit was reversed. It was further stated that they are both manufacturers and service providers, as they were also paying service tax on the rent collected from the HLIPL, that the CENVAT credit was eligible both on the inputs, input services and capital goods, that the CENVAT credit taken could be utilized both for payment of excise duty on their final products and for payment of service tax on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t service, that for the portion of the building used for manufacturing activity, the appellant was eligible for credit of service tax paid on construction services, that there was no dispute on this credit and that the dispute was confined to the quantum of credit availed on construction services on that portion of the building leased out to the HLIPL. 10. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Lakshmi Technology Engineering Indus Ltd. [reported in (2011) 23 STR 265 (Tri.-Chennai)] and also the decision in the case of Navaratna S.G. Highway Property Private Limited Vs. CST [reported in (2012) 28 STR 166 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] and held that without construction of the building, the renting of immova ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
