TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 896
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deny and recover cenvat credit of service tax amounting to Rs. 43,59,861/- availed on construction service of staff quarters, school building and hospital building during 2008-09 to 2010-2011. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 upheld the original order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred this appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that on merit, they are eligible for service tax credit on all these transactions. However, ld. Counsel raised strong objection against the impugned order on the ground that the whole demand is hit by time bar in terms of Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act,1944. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of demand in terms of time limit prescribed as per Section 11 A is taken up for examination first. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants have been filing statutory returns regularly on monthly basis containing details of credit. They also filed cenvat credit register along with such returns. The present proceedings were consequent upon audit of their accounts conducted by the officers. It is also a fact that the appellants were earlier issued with a show cause notice on 11.03.2011 based on a Special Audit Report conducted under Section 14 AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding inadmissible credit of service tax with reference to maintenance of hospitals, directors bungalow, club, etc. Though the said notice was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice is not admissible, have availed cenvat credit with intent to inflate their accounts and subsequently to debit the duty amount improperly from this inflated cenvat credit and thereby, evaded payment of central excise duty. The notice failed to substantiate the grounds on which the extended period of demand was issued. The appellants are claiming eligibility for these credits. The question of their having knowledge of such credit, being not admissible, has not been substantiated. Even if it is so, if the appellant take credit, which is disputable, that by itself, will not form basis for invoking fraud, etc. Further, two different audits have been conducted. Initially, certain service tax credits for the year 2008-09 were sought to be d....