TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome invoices on which cenvat credit availed were found deficient in particulars under the Rules and credit pertaining to capital goods used exclusively for providing exempted service, totalling Rs. 1,11,72,351/-. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that they are not pressing the grounds for demand of Rs. 15,393/- relating to credit pertaining to capital goods used exclusively for providing exempted service. The co-appellant Shri Vijender Singh Gusain, Senior Manager (Finance) is in appeal against penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and Shri Sunil Chauhan, Manager (Excise) on whom penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs is imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The brief facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were being utilised for providing total output services relating to the hotel business which include taxable service for which registration has been taken and non-taxable /exempted services like room accommodation, restaurant, bar, wet cleaning (laundry service) etc. Further it appears that appellants have utilized the common input service for which credit is availed for taxable as well as exempted services provided by them. Further, it appears that the appellant has not followed the procedure as required for maintaining separate account under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence is liable to pay the required percentage, by way of reversal, under Rule 6(3) on the exempted service provided. In respect of some input service and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capital goods used exclusively for providing exempted services. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 6. The first ground urged is that the activity of providing room accommodation, restaurant, wet cleaning were neither exempted services nor the same were taxable services and therefore, Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable. Ld. Counsel states that on plain reading of Rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004 that "exempted service" means taxable services which are exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon and includes services on which no service tax is leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act. He further emphasises that the words used are "leviable" and "not levied". As such the ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e maintained separate records of the input services utilised towards exempted services as well as taxable service. Ld. Counsel further draws attention to para 24 of the impugned order wherein the authorities have taken notice of the contention that the appellant has made investment in their Wing I relating to taxable services to the tune of Rs. 88.84 crores and on Wing II Rs. 103.78 crores in respect of service tax where credit has not been availed as they were not providing taxable service from the same. The appellant has bifurcated the total premises in Wing I and Wing II stating that from lower basement to 1^st floor the same are taxable the service from floor 1^st floor to 2^nd floor it utilises towards non-taxable ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r utilisation of input services credit for taxable & non-taxable output services? A. No, we are not maintaining separate A/c /inventory. Q. Whether you have reversed proportionate cenvat credit in respect of input services utilised for providing non-taxable output services? A. No, we have not done so. 9. Ld. Counsel further states that no adverse inference can be drawn from the said statement in view of the admitted fact that they have not taken proportionate cenvat credit with respect to Wing II or the area occupied for non-taxable service. Thus, there was no question of reversal. Ld. Counsel further states that the extended period is not invoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sample invoice in page 321 - 329 of the paper books, Volume IV, we have seen along with the covering letter, the total bill amount towards final bill dated 21.9.2009, the bill is also available,it contains service tax number and the amount of service tax is also duly mentioned which have been paid by the appellants. Thus it appears that there is error in raising objection. We find that most of the objections are not tenable as the service provider of input can raise demand under various names being bill/debit note/invoice etc. What is relevant is, it should contain the name of the service provider and the service recipient along with tax amount and the fact of payment having been made. We find that there is none of the grounds for rejecti....