2018 (3) TMI 1127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, Sponsorship Service and Renting of Immovable Property Service. The appellant availed cenvat credit of duty /taxes paid on input service and capital goods for providing output service or construction of complexes multiplexes and providing renting of immoveable property service, advertising time or space and other service. Show cause notice was issued wherein it was contended that the credit on input, input service and capital goods used for constructing the mall is not admissible against the output service namely renting of immoveable property that is mall on the ground that the mall is a immoveable property. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of cenvat credit availed on inputs, input service and capital goods. Being aggrieve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....torages (P) Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 33 A.P. In view of this settled position the issue is no longer res integara. 3. On the other hand, Shri M.K. Sarangi, Ld. Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that all inputs, input service and capital goods were used for construction of mall. Accordingly the construction became the output service and not the renting of immoveable property, therefore the cenvat credit availed by the appellant for utilization towards the payment of service tax in respect of renting of mall is incorrect and illegal. He submits that all the cases in support of the appellant relied upon by the Ld. Counsel are based on the decision in the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....astructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of S.T. Mumbai 2015 (40) STR 591 (Tri.-Mumbai) (v) Vodafone India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II 2015 (324) E.L.T. 434 (Bom.) (vi) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Delhi-III 2016 (42) STR 527 (Tri.-Del.) (vii) DLF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T., (ADJ.), New Delhi 2015 (37) STR 467 (Del.) (viii) Lakhan Singh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2016 (46) STR. 297 (Tri.-Del) (ix) Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Adj., Delhi 2016 (42) STR 249 (Tri.-LB) (x) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Delhi-III 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 18 (P & H) (xi) Glaxy Mercantile....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wed, we have considered all the judgments and passed order in City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the identical facts and the law point was involved. In the said judgment we have disallowed the cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used for construction of mall relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III 2014 (35) STR 865 (Bom.). Maintaining the said legal position in the present case also we hold the appellant is not entitled for the cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used for construction of mall. As regard the cenvat credit in respect of input service and capital goods. We have already taken a view that the cenvat credit is admiss....