2018 (12) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... total area of 33,000 sq.ft., 30,990 sq. ft. is being used as factory, whereas in the same premises another 2,009 sq. ft. is being used as depot by the Appellant. Ratio wise the area of the said plot for using as factory and depot is 93.91%: 6.09%. This fact is not disputed by the authority below. 2. In the instant Appeal, the Appellants are contesting only the dis-allowance of Cenvat Credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) which was availed on renting of immovable property i.e. the abovementioned plot and they have specifically mentioned that they don't have any objection about the disallowance of Cenvat Credit on other input services. 3. A show cause notice dated 21.5.2015 was issued to the Appellant for recovery of Rs. 11,00,877/- which w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, out of the total credit of Rs. 10,38,070/- only Rs. 63,219/- (i.e. 6.09%) is ineligible, whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 9,74,851/- is liable to be allowed but while calculating the amount in the impugned order, he didn't take into consideration the aforesaid observation. The relevant extract of Para 7.1 of the impugned order is as under:- "7.1 Renting of immovable Property service- The appellant contends that as per the lease deed entered into between the appellant and M/s. Yoganand Autocomp Pvt. Ltd., (who has provided the said service). It can be seen that the total area under lease is 33,000 sq. ft. of which an area of 30,990 sq. ft. is used in or in relation to manufacturing activity and the remaining 2010 sq. ft. is used fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted that the appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 5. It is not in dispute that out of the total leased area of 33,000 sq. ft., the appellant has used 30,990 sq. ft. (93.91%) for manufacturing activity and the remaining area of 2010 sq. ft. (6.09%) only was used for depot activity. To support their claim, the Appellant have also produced the certificate issued by M/s. Parag Mutha, Chartered Accountant before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not the case of Revenue at any point of time that the entire premises has been used for trading activity or for depot purpose only. None of the authorities have given any reason as to how the department has quantified the inadmissible Cenvat credit on the basis of ratio of sales turn-over of eac....