TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat Credit when the Service Tax is paid on the service provided - Hon ble Ahemdabad Tribunal in the case of Navratna S G Highway Prop. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [ 2012 (7) TMI 316 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ] has held that without utilizing the service, mall could not have been constructed and therefore the renting of immovable property would not have been possible. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As per the factual evidence reproduced by the appellant in the form of ST-Returns and letters filed with the Department from time to time with regard to the Cenvat Credit taken and reversed by them in the course of their business, the Department has not made out any case against the appellant towards suppression - the demand for the extended period is required to be set aside in the present case also on account of time bar. Appeal allowed. - Final Order No.75053/2023 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2023 - Hon ble Mr. R. Muralidhar, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Pulak Saha, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Shri K. Chowdhury, Authorized Representative ORDER PER R. MURALIDHAR The appellant is engaged in construction of commercial prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13/26942 dated 23/10/2013 by invoking the extended period provisions demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit of Rs.18,33,432/-. Since the demand has been made for this amount, there is no dispute with regard to the balance Cenvat Credit already reversed by them. After due process, the demand came to be confirmed at the Adjudication and Lower Appellate Levels. Hence, they are before the Hon ble Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Chartered Accountant states that since the inputs in question have been used for provision of Service they are eligible for the Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He relies on the following case laws:- (i) Sai Samhita Storages Private Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vishakhapatnam-II [2010 (255) E. L. T. 91 (Tri-Bang.) The same has been affirmed by the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court [2011 (2) TMI 400-AP High Court] (ii) Navraratna S G Highway Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahemedabad [2012-TIOL-1245-CESTAT-AHM] (iii) Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2016 (2) TMI 417 CESTAT-Mumbai] (IV) Lemon Tree Hotel (Cyber Hills Developers (P) Ltd.) Vs. CC CE, Hyderabad-IV, [2017] (84) taxmann.com 157 (Hyderabad-CESTAT) (V) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Tribunals and High Courts have been consistently holding that the inputs used for construction of immovable property is eligible for Cenvat Credit when the Service Tax is paid on the service provided. 9. The Hon ble Ahemdabad Tribunal in the case of Navratna S G Highway Prop. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2012-TIOL-1245- CESTAT-AHM] has held as under:- 3.2 The definition of inputs is limited to the definition of input services as can be seen from the definition given above. Credit of duty paid on inputs is available when the inputs are used for providing an output service . Therefore, there is a need to say that the inputs have been used for providing an output service . In the case of input service , the definition includes input services used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service. Therefore the definition of input and input service are pari materia as far as the service providers are concerned. That being the position, the decision of the Hon ble High court of Andhra Pradesh would be applicable to the present case. In that case also, the Hon ble High Court took the view that without use of cement and TMT bars for construction of ware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show-cause notice. After relying upon the Navratna SG Highway Prop. (P) Ltd. case law, the Tribunal has held as under:- 6.2 In view of the ratio of the higher judicial forum and the facts of the case in hand are the same, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. 11. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of GST CE, Chennai vs. Dymos India Automotive Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1135 Madras HC] has held as under:- 9. The Tribunal took note of the allegations in the said show notice i.e. the assessee was not eligible for input service credit availed under the head commercial or industrial construction activities during the period 2008-09. The Tribunal, after referring to the definition input service as it stood at the material time under Rule 2(3) of the said Rules, pointed out that the first limb of the definition made it clear that in the case of service provider, the service tax paid would be eligible input service, if the service is used for providing output service. The assessee contended that they were both manufacturer and provider of output service, that for the portion of the building used for manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
