2012 (6) TMI 522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uilding and residential complexes. The appellant were availing the benefit of notification 15/04 in relation to commercial construction and notification 18/05 in respect of residential construction which provides an abatement of 67% from the gross value received of the service provided by them if the appellant has not availed the CENVAT credit on inputs/capital goods. On 01.03.2006, notification 1/2006 came into force and as per the said Notification abatement of 67% was available only in case where the CENVAT credit of input/capital goods/input service is not availed by e assessee. 3. During the course of scrutiny of records of the appellant, it was found that during the month of March 2006 to June 2006 the appellant has availed CENVAT cr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore appellant has not violated the condition of notification 1/2006. Accordingly, the denial of abatement of 67% of gross service rendered as per notification 1/06 is not sustainable. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the hon'ble Gujarat high Court in the case of CCE vs. Reliance Inds. Ltd. 2010 (19) STR 807, Ashima Dyecot ltd. 2008 (232) ELT 580. He further submitted that on the issue of input service credit on outward transportation services, the issue has been settled by the Karnataka High Court in ABB ltd. Reported in 2011 (23) STR 97. Therefore, the demand on that account is not sustainable. As the demands are not sustainable, penalties are not leviable. 6. In alternative, he submitted that on pointing o....