2016 (8) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 'inputs' under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and hence CENVAT credit of the duty paid thereon is not admissible to the appellant for the relevant period. (b)  I order for recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 5,56,16,995/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. (c)  I order for recovery of interest on the amount confirmed at (b) above under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; (d) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,56,16,995/- under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2.  (a) Ld. Advocate for the appellant gave the break-up of the impugned demand of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   As regards the component of cenvat credit, of Rs. 2,07,393/- denied on the ground of having been taken twice, he admitted that as per chart on Page 458 - 459 of the appeal papers, the said credit appears to have been taken twice though he said the two entries related to different documents. 3.  Ld. A.R. for Revenue on the other hand contended that the impugned input services were used for creating immovable property and therefore, credit on such input services cannot be allowed as they were not used for the purpose of providing output service. 4.  We have considered the contentions of both sides. At the very outset, Both sides have admitted that cenvat credit in relation to capital goods/inputs amounting to Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at their conclusion is based on the facts and circumstances which fell for their consideration in those appeals. Secondly, because in that case the input services/inputs were used in construction of towers which were held to be immovable property and hence not  excisable. And credit was sought on structural items such as iron and steel. Similarly even the judgment in case of Vodafone does not help the Revenue. In the present case, we find that almost the entire credit has been availed on input service which have been used for providing the output service that is Renting of Immovable Property Service for which there was no restriction under the   clause (i) of the definition of 'input service'. The inclusive part of th....