2018 (4) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he facts of the present case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of corrugated boxes and corrugated rolls falling under chapter sub-heading 4819 and 4808 of CETA, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit on capital goods, inputs and input services. During the course of audit, the records of the appellant revealed that during the period March 2010 to September 201 1, the appellant had availed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 6,46,006/-paid on pest control and building/PR construction services. Department entertained the view that the CENVAT Credit availed is irregular as the said services do not fall in the definition of input service as per Rule 20) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as the same was not used either directly or indirectly in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing up of factory. But in the present case, the period is much before the said amendment and hence the credit cannot be denied, He also submitted. that the circular No.98/1/2008-ST dt. 04/01/2008 relied on in the impugned order is contrary to the definition of input service. It is further submitted that the invoice dt.  26/03/2010, which is on record, specially states that the construction was completed and has been handed over the factory building in June, 2009 whereas the definition of input service was amended w.e.f. 01/04/201 1. He also submitted that it is clear from the ERI returns that even after reversing the impugned credit, they had   as closing balance. He also submitted that the show-cause notice covering March 20....