2020 (4) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which are used for maintenance of cleanliness of the mall. The case of the department is that since the appellant are providing renting of immovable property services. All the capital goods on which credit is taken was used for construction of mall and not for providing the services of renting of immovable property. Accordingly, the credit was denied. Therefore, the appellant filed the present case.   2. Shri Tapas Ruparelia, learned Chartered Accountant, appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the following judgments:   1. City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nashik 2017 (11) TMI 301- Cesta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nstruction of shopping mall, however the same goods is not the input for providing output service i.e. renting of immovable property. Therefore in view of Honble High Court of Bombay judgement in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra), the cenvat credit is not admissible on the goods used in the construction of mall. As per the definition of input for the purpose of providing service, it is clear that only on those inputs Cenvat is allowed which are used for providing the output service. In the present case, cement, steel, for steel, angles, channels etc. were not used for providing output service i.e renting of immovable property. The same was used for providing construction service which is not the output service of the appellant, therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese capital goods were directly used by the appellant for providing output service i.e. renting of immovable property service. Accordingly the cenvat credit on the capital goods is admissible, the demand of Rs. 2,26,36,646/- on this count is set aside. As regard........." 4.1 The Tribunal relying on the above decision in the case of Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra) has also taken the same view. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:   "16. We do not see any reason to deviate from the observation recorded in the aforesaid judgment. Hence, applying the said judgment to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the CENVAT Credit is admissible to the appellant on the duty....