2015 (11) TMI 1586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v Bhatnagar, D.R. ORDER In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has disallowed cenvat credit taken on repair and maintenance of residential colony on the ground that the said service has no nexus with the final product manufacture by the appellant.  Further, cenvat credit has also been denied on the invoice dated 24.06.2011 on the ground that the appellant is not th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld. Advocate further submits that the demand is barred by limitation of time, in as much as, the period involved is from April 2010 to June 2011, whereas the  show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2012. To support the limitation aspect, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself is reported in 2014 TIOL 656 (CESTAT-Del.). As regards the in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not be applicable for denial of cenvat benefit.  3.  On the other hand, Shri Vaibhav Bhatnagar, the ld. D.R. appearing for the respondent reiterates  the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.  I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.  5.  I find from the available records that the appellant had made specific submissions before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....year, which is barred by the limitation of time, in as much as, there is no element of suppression, fraud, wilful mis-statement etc., in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself, wherein Cenvat credit was allowed  on input service used for construction of residential colony near the factory.  7.  With regard to the invoice dated 24.06.2011 issued by ....