TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalties. Out of the said impugned demand, demand of Rs. 13,99,74,736/- for the period 01.04.2006 31.03.2007 has been confirmed on account of denial of 67% abatement under notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006 on the ground that the appellant had taken CENVAT credit of input services. The remaining demand of Rs. 23,26,68,080/- for the period 01.09.2006 to 31.07.2009 and Rs. 1,36,79,004/- for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 has been confirmed under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service'' (CICS). 2. The appellant has contended that (i) when Notification No. 15/2004ST was replaced by Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006 an additional condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit on input services was also introduced an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ELT 3 (SC)], the exemption under Notification is subject to the condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit and can be granted only if the CENVAT credit is reversed before the clearance of the goods and CESTAT in the case of Hind Lamps Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2010 (250) ELT 237 (Tri.-Del)] has distinguished the case of Hello Minerals (supra) to hold that CENVAT credit should have been reversed before the due date of payment of service tax. It also cited judgements in the cases of CCE, Thane-I Vs. Nicholas Piramal Ltd. [2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bomb.)] and Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2014 (36) STR 408 (Tri.- Mumb.)] (ii) The joint venture between the appellant and M/s. WOGL, London was a separate legal entity and had a separate service tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with a demand of almost Rs. 14 crores merely for input service credit of just above Rs. 32 lakhs. As regards the possible argument that there is no equity in taxation and exemption Notifications have to be construed strictly, suffice to say that in the case of Hello Minerals (supra) the Allahabad High Court has clearly held as under:- 18. In view of the above decision we are of the opinion that reversal of Modvat credit amounts to non-taking of credit on the inputs. Hence the benefit has to be given of the notification granting exemption/rate of duty on the final product since the reversal of the credit on the input was done at the Tribunals stage. We find that the judgement of Allahabad High Court had taken into account the Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see did not reverse the credit at the time of removal of goods or after removal . Without dwelling further on the subject, we may only add that as on today the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals (supra) continues to be good law with regard to the subject at hand and has been repeatedly followed by CESTAT, e.g., in the case of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai (Order No.S/924/14/CSTB/C-I, dated 03.09.2014), B.G. Shirke Construction Tech. Vs. CCE, Pune [2009 (13) STR 683 (Tri.-Mum.)] and Khyati Tours & Travels Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2012 (27) STR 366 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]. As such we hold that the component of impugned demand arising as a result of denial of the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST is not su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the finance act 1994. In terms of Section 65 (76) of the Finance Act, 1994, other Port has the meaning assigned to port in clause(4) of section 3 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908. As per section 3 (4) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 port includes 'any part of a River or channel in which this act is for the time being in force. The Indian Ports Act, 1908 extends to the ports mentioned in the 1st schedule as per section 1 thereof. We find that in the said 1st schedule in part X Dabhol is mentioned under the Ratnagiri group of ports. It is also seen that Maharashtra Maritime Board Charter lists Dabhol as one of the 48 minor ports on the coastal line. It is also acknowledged by Maharashtra Mari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.25/2007-ST. 8. In the wake of the fact that the impugned demand has not been found to be sustainable, the allegation of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts does not remain of much relevance and therefore does not have to be dwelt upon in detail. We find that this issue has been dealt with in the impugned order only in the following paragraph 32. I also find that the assessee had intentionally and wilfully suppressed the fact of providing impugned taxable services and collection/payment of impugned value of such taxable services and did not pay service tax as applicable on such services and did not file prescribed sT-3 returns in respect. I also find that the said facts of evading the payment of service tax would not have been....