TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgued that appellant is receiving services of 'anagement Consultancy' from M/s. Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) falling under Section 65 (105) (r) of the Finance Act, 1994 while according to the Revenue the same should be classified as Business Auxiliary Services falling under Section 65 (105) (22b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned advocate explained that if the classification of the services is under Section 65 (105) (r) then 100% credit of input services is admissible to the appellant as claimed. That if the classification is made under Section 65 (105) 22b) then credit admissible for use will be 20% of the total credit as claimed by Revenue. The first argument of the Learned Advocate is that classification/ assessments made a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.3 That there was no conscious withholding of any information by the appellant from the department hence extended period is not invokable and no penalties are imposable upon the appellant in the present proceedings. 3. Shri J. Nagori (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue during the hearing as well as in written submissions defended the order passed by the adjudicating authority and argued that credit can be varied at the recipients end. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The primary issue involved in the present proceedings argued by the appellant is whether or not duty determined and classification of services made at the service providers end can be charged by the authorities having jurisdiction over the ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specifically excluded in the table annexed to Rule 57-Q. The credit availed cannot be allowed and consequently, apart from ordering recovery of Rs. 3,44,000/- a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal came to be allowed by order dated 18-8-2003. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order impugned dated 13-10-2004 in Final Order No. 80/2004 [2005 (179) E.L.T. 220 (Tribunal)], having confirmed the order of the lower authority, confirmed the order of the original authority. 4. Mr. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant in his submissions after r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of glass in the factory premises, applying the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)], it should be held that the first respondent was entitled for credit availed. Extending the above submissions, learned counsel contended that even by applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs [2007 (218) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.)], if the shovel loader by virtue of its classification as falling under 84.29 has been excluded since such a classification has been specified by the manufacturer of product itself. The first respondent's contention based on clause 5 of the table annexed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the heading 84.29, there is no scope for any other authority to classify the same under any other heading. We also perused the heading 84.29 and 84.28 as prescribed under the Central Excise Tariff 1999-2000. Shovel loader is one of the specific product under the heading 84.29. In the table annexed to Rule 57-Q, clause 2, while all goods falling under Chapter 84 were held to be entitled for Modvat credit, specific exclusion in respect of the product falling under heading 84.29 to 84.37 had been made. Therefore, when the product falling under 84.29 had been specifically excluded for the purpose of availing MODVAT credit and the 'shovel loader' was the product with reference to which the first respondent availed MODVAT credit, there was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving that the said Heading 84.29 has been specifically ousted from the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q of the Rules. The Dy. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q (bb) of the Rules. 4. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that 'Loadall' being an improvised version of material handling equipment would properly fall under Heading 84.27 and not under Heading 84.29. It was further observed that forklift truck or crane or similar material handling equipments have been held to be eligible capital goods. On this finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant would be entitled to cl....