2018 (8) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per: Ramesh Nair, The appellant has provided construction services to an educational institution, namely, Gujarat Council of Primary Education, Bharuch. During the period April 2015 to February 2016, they have discharged the Service Tax on this service for the said period. In the Union Budget, 2016, these services was exempted vide notification no. 09/2016 dated 01.03.2016 under Exemption en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tional ground that the appellant was supposed to pay 6 % of the value of the exempted services in terms of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Shri Kushal Rathi, Ld. Chartered Accountant, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that after passing order in Original, the appellant had reversed the entire credit on the excessive servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he working of the reversal of CENVAT credit. The matter needs to be remanded for verification. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. On the finding that the appellant have reversed the credit in respect of services used exclusively for providing the exempted services and also on the common services. Therefore, they have complied with the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Thereafter as per the mandate given under Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016, they became entitled for the refund. In order to process the refund, they were supposed to reverse the CENVAT credit attributed to the output service. In this exceptional case, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have brought into a new ground of Rule 6 for denying the refund. However, the adjudicating authority had no....