9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce'. A Show Cause Notice bearing No. C. No. V-ST (15)62/CE/HAL/Adjn/2011/16532 dated 06.09.2012 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax on various issues, amounting to Rs.4,12,58,181/-. 1.1. The said notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate vide his Order-in- Original bearing No. 26/Commissioner/CE/Haldia/Adjn/2014 dated 29.09.2014. 2. In the impugned order-in-original the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has ordered as follows:- (a) Demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,83,71,415/- alleged to be of adjustment of service tax beyond permissible limit has been dropped. (b) Demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 28,24,469/-has been confirmed under the category of port service and Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices involve only four service recipients viz.: (a) ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD. (b) TATA CHEMICLES LTD. (c) GURU SHIPPING & CLEARING (d) LEE & MUIRHEAD PVT. LTD. 3.2. The appellant submits that out of the 64 invoices, nine invoices pertained to 'Port Services' rendered to M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd.; the value of service rendered against the said nine invoices amounts to Rs. 4,33,000/-. The appellant agreed to pay service tax on the said value of service received from M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. 3.3. In respect of services rendered to M/s. Guru Shipping & Clearing and M/s. Lee & Muirhead Pvt. Ltd., the appellant submits that the service is related to export cargo handling inside the dock area and such s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed under the category of 'port service' is not sustainable. 4. Regarding denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.2,85,577/-, the appellant submits that, in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has denied the above CENVAT credit on the ground that the invoices submitted by the appellant for availing the CENVAT Credit has the address of their headquarters. In this regard, it is contended that while giving the decision, the Ld. Commissioner has gone beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice; the allegation made in the impugned Show Cause Notice was that the appellant is having other units but no centralized registration had been obtained and accordingly CENVAT Credit availed on the basis of such invoices was claimed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of 'Port Services'. Accordingly, we confirm this demand along with interest, under the category of 'Port Services. 7.1. In respect of the services rendered To Guru Shipping & Clearing and M/s. Lee & Muirhead Pvt. Ltd., we observe that the appellant handled export cargo inside the dock area for these clients. We observe that handling of export cargo in port area has been excluded from the definition of "Cargo Handling Service" as provided in Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, the said services are not liable to service tax under the category of 'Port Services'. We observe that while adjudicating the case, the Ld. Commissioner has wrongly based his decision on the definition of 'Port Service' as ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.2,85,577/-, we observe that the adjudicating authority has denied the said CENVAT credit on the ground that the invoices submitted by the appellant for availing the CENVAT credit has the address of their headquarters. We observe that the receipt of the service by the appellant and utilising the same for rendering their output service is not in question. The allegation made in the impugned Show Cause Notice is that the appellant is having other units but no centralized registration has been obtained and accordingly CENVAT Credit availed on the basis of such invoices was disallowed. We observe that when the receipt and utilisation is not in dispute, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied merely on procedural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the decision cited by the learned counsel, the procedural irregularity has to be ignored and the demand confirmed has to be set-aside on this ground. In the result, demand for Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,07,07,142/- with interest and penalty equal to the same imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 are set-aside." 8.2. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (277) ELT 317 (Kar.)], the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as under: "4. The assessee had availed the Service tax credit based on the invoices issued by the Chennai office indicating that the Service tax are taken by their unit at Malur. That the Service tax paid by the Chennai unit pertains to adver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
