9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per K. Anpazhakan, The present appeal has been filed against the impugned Order in Appeal No. 65/2014 dated 2.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), LTU, Chennai wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand confirmed in the Order in Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(3)(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As the appellant has not paid the 6% of the value of the exempted services, Show Cause Notice was issued and after due process, the demands were confirmed in the OO and on appeal, the demands confirmed were upheld in the impugned order. 3. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant submits that the works contract services rendered by them to Chennai Airport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s related to reversal of CENVAT credit attributed to common input services used in taxable and exempted services. It is a fact on record that the appellant has rendered works contract service to Chennai Airport which are specifically excluded from the levy of service tax as provided under clause (zzzza) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant tried to make a distinction between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service rendered by the appellant to Chennai Airport project, these services have been rightly considered as exempted services by the authorities below. Thus, we find that the demand has been rightly confirmed in the impugned order. Accordingly, we uphold the demand of Rs.42,81,673/- being equal to 6% of the value of the exempted services confirmed in the impugned order along with interest. 8. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
