9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 2009 to May, 2012 on service tax paid on various input services like construction, site formation, consultancy, repair and maintenance etc. and order for its recovery alongwith interest and equal penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raigad, his above referred order, is assailed by the assesse/Appellant in the present appeal. 2. Brief fact of the case, as revealed from the appeal memo and other documents available on record, is that original Assessee M/s. Welspun Maxsteel Ltd., had its factory located at Salav, PORevdanda, Raigad-Maharashtra established in 1993 and it was engaged in manufacture of Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) also known as hot briquettes iron and sponge iron falling under Chapter 72 of the Firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant Mr. Rajesh Ostwal submitted that for both periods prior to 01.04.2011 and thereafter, in view of express provision and judicial decisions mentioned in another table at Sr. No. 11.1 of the written submission that forms part of the record, credit was admissible for construction & consultancy service, repair & maintenance, security service, manpower supply service, hiring service etc. and Appellant had rightly availed those. He further submitted that the amendment was effected from 01.04.2011 for construction service and in view of Board Circular No. 943/4/2011- CX dated 29.04.2011 as well as judgement of Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) (Ltd.) reported in 2022 (56) GSTL 22 (T) and other decisions on the issue services used in setting of fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,49,165/- that was contrary to the definition contained for inputs service under Rule, 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner and has drawn our attention to the reply received from the concerned Commissionerate, in response to our query regarding issue of the order by Commissioner without waiting for the reply of the Assessee-Appellant to the query made to it. He has also informed that Appellant had not even replied to the show-cause notice for more than a year till the last date of physical hearing and even after knowing that Circular of the Board bearing No. 922/12/2010-CX dated 18.05.2010 dictates the Commissioner to complete its order with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 09.10.2015 seeking its response on the location where services were provided and the place where setting of new plant was progressing and the activities to be undertaken in the same plant. The reply though receipt after passing of the order by the Commissioner, going by its content as available in page 25 to 28 of the appeal memo, it can be considered as a cryptic reply for the reason that para 2.3 of its reply letter reveals that the plant was still in proposal stage which can be considered as forward integration. There is no reference in the said reply letter that the plant has been set up integrated with Appellant's existing plant, to which invoices were addressed to. Further, going by the two relied upon letters annexed to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
