2015 (1) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, 2004. Adjudicating authority has also imposed equivalent penalty and demanded interest on the amounts confirmed. As the issue involved in all these stay applications is the same, therefore, all of them are being taken together for disposal in this common order. 2. Shri V.S. Nankani (Advocate), assisted by Shri Hardik Modh (Advocate) and Shri A.R. Choudhary (Advocates), appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ld.Advocate Shri V.S. Nankani submitted that appellant is providing port services, storage & warehousing services and cargo handling services for which they have taken Service Tax registration and are paying Service Tax. It was his case that appellant has created a jetty from where the above services are being provided and CENVAT Credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../WZB/AHD/2009, dt.4.8.2009 allowed appellants ROM application and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the quantification and admissibility of CENVAT Credit on some other items. That Revenue filed Tax Appeal No.737 of 2009 against CESTAT's order before the Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble High Court vide order dt.5.5.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. That Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dt.17.10.2012 dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against High Court's order dt.5.5.2010. That the matter of admissibility of CENVAT Credit on cement and steel is also pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. 2.1 Ld.Advocate further argued that this very bench on a similar issue in the case of M/s Adani P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pon by the appellant will not be applicable where this judgment was not brought to the knowledge of the bench while passing order dt.17.6.2014 in the case of M/s Adani Petronet Port Pvt.Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad (supra). That appellant has not given any break-up as to how much inputs/services/capital goods are used for construction of Jetty and how much is used for providing port services. It was also his case that appellant has not provided sufficient documentary evidences in support of claim for CENVAT Credit. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the case records and the arguments made by both sides that out of total demand of Rs. 185 crore, an amount of Rs. 35 crore only pertains to Cement & Steel. This amou....