2017 (12) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it along with interest of Rs. 33,910/- before issue of show-cause notice. It was argued by the appellant that demand of interest of Rs. 68,351/- has been confirmed. He argued that they had reversed the interest in respect of amount which was used by them and they are not liable to reverse interest in respect of amount which was used by them and they are not liable to pay interest in respect of amount not utilised by them. On being asked about the evidence of non utilisation of credit, ld. Counsel did not produce evidence. 3. Appeal no. E/86077/17 is against denial of cenvat credit on seven different items, out of which on two items the appellants are not contesting. The first item relates to service in respect of outdoor catering in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to service used in the residential colony. The appellants have argued that the costs of such service are included in the value of the final products and they have enclosed certificate in support of the same assertion. The appellants have relied upon the decision of Reliance Industries - 2016 (42) STR 457. It is seen that the services availed in the residential colony relates to club, bungalow, swimming pool etc. These activities are not even remotely connected to the manufacture of final products and thus credit of the same cannot be allowed. 7. The next issue relates to credit of service tax availed on repair and maintenance of DG Set of water treatment plant in the factory premises. It is seen that the impugned order records that the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd not availed the similar credit further knowing it is inadmissible to them; however did not reverse or paid the same till it was detected and pointed to the appellant by the audit party during the course of audit period September and October 2013 and appellant accordingly paid the same on 31.10.2013. The appellant argued that same service provider provided the services both for company and residential area and therefore mistakenly they availed the credit. However, it do not find any merit in the plea of the appellant because they are having the detail inventory of input services and separate bills i.e. bills of factory area and bill of residential areas. The audit pointed the irregularity by inspecting the said bills whereas the appellant....