TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant had taken/availed CENVAT credit. Appellant is a service provider under the category of 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Services' and discharged the service tax liability by availing the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST. It is the case of the Revenue that the service tax liability discharged by the appellant during the period in question by claiming abatement of 67% is incorrect as they have availed CENVAT credit of 'inputs' and 'input services'. Show cause notice was issued. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contention raised and confirmed the demand along with interest. He refrained from imposing any penalties on the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by accepting the mistake they paid the service tax liability, and will also pay the interest liability. It is his submission that the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 be set aside. 4. Learned D.R. would draw our attention to the Notification No. 1/2006-ST and submit that the Notification is very clear and CENVAT credit should not have been availed on the input services. It is his submission that CENVAT credit has been availed hence the case law which has been relied by the learned C.A. will not be applicable in this case. He would read para 8.2 of the order-in-original and submit that the appellant on their own submission has accepted that they have taken CENVAT credit of service tax paid by various service pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t availed by the appellant of the service tax paid by the service providers for the services rendered prior to 01.03.2006 cannot be faulted with as availment of CENVAT credit by service recipient is subject to the condition that payment for such service rendered as the provisions. Undisputedly, in this case the appellant had paid the service providers / settled the service providers bill subsequently from March 2006 for the service rendered prior to 01.03.2006 and has correctly claimed the legitimate CENVAT credit available. 6.3 Secondly we find that the Tribunal in the case of Santosh Associates (supra) on the very same issue has considered all the aspects of law and held in paragraph 4 as under:- "4. I have considered the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the benefit of Notification No. 18/2005 for the period prior to 1-3-2006. Appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to appellants." 6.4 The submissions made by learned D.R. as to the applicability of sub-Rule (7) of Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2006 and the 2nd proviso thereto will not carry the case of the Revenue any further. In order to appreciate the said submissions we reproduce the said sub-rule (7) of Rule 4:- (7) The CENVAT credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day which payment is made of the value of input service and the service tax paid or payable as is indicated in invoice, bill or, as the case may be, challan referred to in rule 9. Provided that in case of an inp....