2016 (3) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ters 32, 38, 25, 27 and 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is availing the facility of cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The CERA audit was conducted at the premises of the appellant and they have observed that the appellant has availed and utilized service tax credit of Rs. 2,80,538/- wrongly because the input services involved is pertaining to construction of shopping complex situated outside the factory premises during the period from June 2007 to December 2007. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued. The appellant filed reply refuting the allegations in the show cause notice and thereafter the Assistant Commissioner passed order dated 28.1.2010 confirming the demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in relation to their activities relating to business. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) Vako Seals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-V reported in 2015 (40) STR 594; (ii) CCE, Meerut vs. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. reported in 2015 (40) STR 379. 3.1 The learned counsel further submitted that the credit involved in the show cause notice was for the period 2007 i.e. prior to amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules, which came into force on 1.4.2011. The definition of input services upto 31.3.2011 covered within its scope of the services used by an assessee in relation to his business activities. It was only after the amendment w.e.f. 1.4.2011 that the construction services were take....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efinition of "input services" and in this case, the credit was availed for the year 2007, which is very much admissible at that time. 6.1 Further, I also find that the appellant has not suppressed any facts from the department. The appellant has mentioned in all the statutory records viz. RG23A (Part II), TR-6 challan and ER-1 returns regarding the factum of availment of the credit, but the department has not considered these factual aspects before passing the impugned order. 6.2 I also find that the impugned order has traveled beyond the show cause notice in the sense that in the show cause notice the allegation is that the appellant availed input service credit on construction of shopping complex outside the factory premises whereas....