2018 (7) TMI 679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2014 to April 2014. The Revenue alleging that the services provided were in the nature of construction service, and that the same was not used by the appellant directly or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and clearance of the final products up to the place of removal, issued a SCN dated 14.06.2016. It was further alleged by the Revenue that the appellant had not produced any documents relating to the availment of Cenvat credit and that no valid reasons were furnished to the effect that the said credit was available under the Rules. Accordingly, it was proposed in the SCN as to why: i) Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,59,433/- for the period from February 2014 to April 2014 should not be disallowed and demanded from them under S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-in-Original was of the view that the appellants had taken Cenvat credit wrongly on ineligible service which was liable to be recovered along with interest. The adjudicating authority further observed that the appellants had reversed the Cenvat credit immediately after it was brought to their notice as to the wrong availment of Cenvat credit which fact, according to the adjudicating authority, was to prove the bonafide intentions of the appellants. The adjudicating authority was therefore of the opinion that as per the definition of 'input service' at the material point of time, the services pertaining to 'modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory' qualified as input services under the inclusive clause of the definition under Rule 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty by the adjudicating authority, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Chennai. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 has allowed the appeal of the Revenue by setting aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. It is the view of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee had not disclosed the fact of availing Cenvat credit on service tax paid on construction services provided to the department. Further, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as also held that the imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC is automatic and that the Asst. Commissioner had no description, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Textile Mills - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and Rajasthan....