TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 excludes those services falling under Section 66E(b) / 66E(h) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the impugned services availed by the appellant do not fall under the exclusion clause. Further, the impugned services fall within the definition of input service because the expression in the manufacture or in relation to manufacture or includes employed in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 connotes very wide scope as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE [ 2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT ] - the impugned services in the present case fall in the definition of input service and the appellant is eligible to take the CENVAT Credit of the same. Extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 by audit party of Central Excise, Bangalore, it appeared that they had availed ineligible CENVAT credit of ₹ 9,94,146/- paid as Service Tax on input services alleged to be Professional Consultancy Service on Real Estate provided by M/s. Punya Davar, Topography Survey Service provided by M/s. Oneness Infratech and Cleaning and Leveling service provided by Sri Mangala, which are not eligible input service as they appeared to be services in relation to Construction Services . Further, the Department entertained the view that the appellant has willfully suppressed the fact of availment of the irregular credit with an intention to utilize the same for payment of Central Excise duty and therefore they have invoked the extended per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ike Real Estate Service, Survey Service and Cleaning Services. He further submitted that the department has erroneously come to the conclusion that these services were used in relation to construction of factory whereas no construction was carried out and further, the appellant has attached a certificate from the Chartered Accountant in support of his submission that no construction activity was carried out. He further submitted that the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l)(A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 excludes inter alia only construction services/ and not services in preparation of construction of building . In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n used for the purpose of carrying out construction. Further, I find that the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l) of Input Service is very clear and in the exclusion clause only construction services have been excluded and not the services in preparation of construction of building. Further, I find that the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l)(A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 excludes those services falling under Section 66E(b) / 66E(h) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the impugned services availed by the appellant do not fall under the exclusion clause. Further, I find that the impugned services fall within the definition of input service because the expression in the manufacture or in relation to manufacture or includes employed in Rule 2(l) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
