2015 (8) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l goods for providing output services. During the course of investigation, it was found that during the period March, 2006 to March, 2007, the appellant provided services to German Air Force Aircrafts/ flights at IGI Airport and did not pay the service tax thereon. Therefore these services were presumed by the Revenue as exempted services. In that set of facts, the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant was sough to be restricted to 20% of Cenvat credit as per Rule 6 (3) (c) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. It was also found that during the period 2005 to 2009, security and maintenance services were provided at the residence of Managing Director of the appellant which were sought to be denied on the premise that same does not qualify as in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant in the course of their business of providing output service. Therefore, they are entitled to take Cenvat credit. Further, he submits that Cenvat credit have been denied on the ground that motor vehicle chassis has been converted to provide water carts and toilet carts, as motor vehicle is not a capital goods, therefore they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit. Infact these carts are not registered under Motor Vehicle Act and vehicle chassis were used by them for providing output services. Therefore, same are capital goods / inputs for providing input services, as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, they are entitled to take Cenvat credit. 4. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned consultant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovided exempted services. Therefore, I hold that in the absence of any contrary evidence produced by the Revenue, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. At the most the case could have been booked against the appellant for non payment of service tax which Revenue failed to do so, therefore, I hold that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit of Rs. 33,55,544/. Issue No. 2. The second issue is that appellant availed security and maintenance services at the residence of Managing Director. Admittedly the services availed at the residence of Managing Director have no nexus with the output services provided by the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of Manikg....