2019 (12) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent having their site office at Rajahmundry entered into an agreement dated 06.01.2005 with M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), Rajahmundry for construction of off shore well and modification of existing off shore well platform in Krishna-Godavari basin, besides some other construction services. Based on intelligence and verification of records and consequential investigation, Revenue has come to the conclusion that the services rendered by the respondent are classifiable under "Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service" on which the service tax amounting to Rs. 25,78,46,297/- was chargeable on the services rendered from October 2004 to March 2007. The assessee had paid only an amount Rs. 7,97,64,400/- towards ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irregularly availed for two different demands indicated in the same show cause notice and therefore should be confirmed as such. The Commissioner has erred in setting aside the CENVAT credit against the demand confirmed without giving any reason thereon. b) The penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Rule 15 of CCR 2004 is only Rs. 10 lakhs while the wrongly availed CENVAT Credit is Rs. 1,20,09,077/-. The Commissioner had no authority to reduce the mandatory penalty imposable under Rule 15 of CCR 2004. 4. During hearing, Ld. DR reiterated the above grounds and prayed that the impugned order may be set aside to the extent it holds that the demand of Rs. 1,20,09,077 of CENVAT Credit irregularly availed and utilised by the respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s contrary to her own findings in para 25 of the order. Therefore, we find that the sentence "The total amount of Rs. 25,78,46,297/- demanded above towards total service tax payable includes CENVAT Credit demanded amount of Rs. 1,20,09,077/- also" in para 'v' of the ORDER needs to be quashed as it is contrary to the findings of the adjudicating authority in para 25 and we do so. 8. On the question of penalty, we find that para 'ix' of the Order reads as follows: "I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for irregular availment and utilisation of the CENVAT Credit on input services." 9. Rule 15(4) of CCR, 2004 reads as follows: "In a case where the CENVAT ....