TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods viz. construction machinery like concrete mixers falling under Chapter 84 of CETA, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). During the audit of the records of the unit, it was felt by the department that the appellant had availed ineligible input service credit of Rs. 22,90,273/- for the period from 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2014 on the services viz. repairs and maintenance, professional charges (RTO registration), services related to incineration of waste, renting of furniture, advertising etc. A show-cause notice dt. 03/03/2015 was issued to the appellant demanding Rs. 22,90,273/- being the irregular c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the credit on the invoices issued by Bosch Rexroth / Siskon Engineering had been availed in the context of providing output services of repair and maintenance on which the appellant herein has also discharged the applicable service tax, inter alia, by enclosing detailed statement prepared with invoice references etc. and also sample copies of documents and also cited decisions in support of his claim but the authorities have not considered the same and has conveniently ignored the documents produced by him. He further submitted that the services provided by Ajax Engineering was specifically relating to repairs undertaken within the warranty period of the machines sold by of agreement dt. 01/04/2009 and thus emphasizing that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subsequent show-cause notice is also not sustainable in law. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of records, I find that the denial of credit availed on the invoices issued by Bosch Rexroth and Siskon Engineering is not justified. Vide the impugned order, the credit was denied essentially by holding that no evidences have been furnished to show that the repairs and maintenance charges are included in the transaction value and as part of the sales warranty being a after sales activity. Further I find that the appellant has given the detailed information in the form of tabulated statement which have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that appellant has produced on record the copy of the said agreement dt. 31/09/2009 which has been renewed and valid up to 01/04/2014 but the same has not been considered by the authorities below and have wrongly come to the conclusion that the said agreement has lapsed after 01/04/2009. Therefore l hold that credit has wrongly been denied on the invoices issued by Ajax Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 6.3. With regard to denial of credit availed on the invoices issued by Jayalakshmi Enterprises, I find that the CENVAT Credit has wrongly been denied on the ground that the temporary registration is issued in the name of the buyer and not in the name of the appellant and the said activity has been wrongly considered as having no relatio....