TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Noida/2009 dated 23/01/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Noida. 2. The issue in this appeal by the assessee is whether they have rightly availed Cenvat credit on the Bills of their Sub-contractors for service received under the "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS)" wherein they have approved the Bill of their Sub-contractor and paid the major part of it by retaining 10 per cent of the same towards security deposits/retention money. Further, issue is, whether, there is mala-fide and suppression on the part of the appellant in availing Service tax credit of the full amount, as reflected in the Bill of their Service Provider/Sub-contractors under the fact that they have paid by retaining ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eptember, 2006 and the same appeared inadmissible in view of the provisions of Rule 4 (7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which provides, Cenvat credit in respect of input service shall be allowed on or after the day on which payment is made of the value of input service and the Service tax paid or payable as indicated in invoice. It appeared to Revenue as the appellant have retained 10 per cent of the Bill amount of Sub-contractors, as such they are not entitled to proportionate Cenvat credit of Service tax. Further, fact is that the appellant on being objected by the Revenue reversed this amount of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,07,28,250/- vide Cenvat credit account debit entry in register on 06-01-2007. 5. Further, fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed above. Further, interest and penalty were proposed. 6. The appellant appeared and contested the Show Cause Notice and the same was adjudicated confirming the proposed demand with appropriation. Further demand for interest of Rs. 7,85,306/- on the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1.07 crore and also interest on Service tax Rs. 45,39,703/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, a penalty of Rs. 2 crore have been imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. Being aggrieved the appellant have preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel urges that the Show Cause Notice is bad as there is no case of suppression or misinformation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption. Similarly, when payment of duty on the input (yarn), the assessee took the credit which was never utilized and that before utilization, the entry has been reversed which amounts to not taking credit. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 8. The ld. AR for Revenue relies on the impugned order. He, further, states that in view of the categorical information regarding the availment of Cenvat credit, found irregular extended period have been rightly invoked. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that so far as the first issue of taking Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,07,28,250/- is concerned, the objection of Revenue is not tenable as there is no Service tax ....