TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f "works contract service' rendered in domestic area; appellant was availing Cenvat credit on various input services which are consumed in rendering taxable output services, as well as exempted output services; as per Rule 6 of CCR, the appellant have not opted for maintaining separate account for receipt, consumption and inventory of input services for provision of taxable output services and for provision of exempt services, as well as for utilization; thus, the appellant/assessee appeared liable to pay an amount attributable to the Cenvat credit on inputs services used in the exempt output services, at the specified rate in Rule 6(3) of CCR, for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2012; the Revenue calculated the amount payable as below: Sl. No. Period Value of exempted services provided Rate of Cenvat credit to be reversed Amount to be Reversed A B C D 1. 2010-11 Rs. 3,84,30,39,918 6 Rs. 23,05,82,395 2. 2011-12 Rs. 8,80,58,22,801 5 Rs. 44,02,91,140 Total Rs. 67,08,73,535/ Year Year Total value of exempted service Total of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l dated 1.6.2016. The details of the show cause notice, period in dispute and the demands confirmed vide the impugned order are as follows, which are appealed against by the appellants. Sl. No. Demands confirmed Appeal No. 21325/2016 SCN dated 23.4.2013 Period 10/2007 to 3/12 (Rs.) 21326/2016 dated 21.5.2014 4/12 to 6/13 (Rs.) 1. Service tax on construction of toll plaza, administrative Buildings, rest rooms, parking bays etc. 3,77,03,996 7,04,71,970 2. Under Rule 6(3) of CCR 1,94,46,310 (Appropriated) 3. Cenvat Credit disputed 3(a) credit double availed disallowed 5,81,31,723 (rev. 59,43,283) 7,58,737 (Reversed) (Appropriated) 3,39,24,571 4. Penalty 76 Under Section 77(2) Under Section 78 Not imposed 10,000/- 3,77,03,006 Not imposed 10,000/- 7,04,71,970 (not proposed in SCN) 5. Penalty under Rule 15(3) of CCR 7,58,737 5,81,31,723 Nil 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Anil Kumar Kathuria assailing the impugned order makes the following submissions and grounds: 5.1. Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 (22) STR 663 (Tri- Chennai), wherein 'Air catering unit' constructed under the indivisible EPC contract for Airport, was held to be part of Airport and not taxable separately. • Delhi Bench of Tribunal in DIAL Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi held that the 'advance development fees' received by DIAL from lessees in the Aero City area, Delhi Airport, for providing and constructing common facilities was held to be non taxable as such activity was held to be within the meaning of airport. 5.3. Learned Counsel also submits that the scope of sub-contract entered with M/s Buoyance Infrastructure Ltd, is as follows; "1. Scope of work: a) GIL-EPC scope of work shall include the total works connected with the CONTRACT as per the specifications mentioned in the CONTRACT including Tender Documents/Specification/Drawings etc. b) GIL-EPG is understood to have satisfied himself by due careful examination before signing this sub contract Agreement as to the contents of the CONTRACT, the nature of the ground and sub-soil, the form and nature of the site, the quantities and nature of the work, the materials and equipments etc., necessary for com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not dispute. 10. The next ground is regarding disallowance of Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,81,31,723/- in show cause notice dated 23.4.2013 and Rs. 3,39,24,751/- in show cause notice dated 21.4.2014. Learned Counsel urges that the Cenvat credit disallowed comprises as follows: Nature of Services Amount (4/12 to 6/13) 07-08 to 11-12 Advertising and marketing Rs. 21,477/- Air Travel Agents Rs. 5,675/- Banking and Financial Services Rs. 3,03,08,620/- Advisory Services Rs. 1,35,960/- Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services Rs. 4,81,461/- Security Services Rs. 9,24,904/- Works Contract Services Rs. 20,46,654/- Total Rs. 3,39,24,751/- 5,81,31,723/- Learned Counsel submits that Rule 2(l) of CCR provides for the scope of credit on input service allowable to a provider of output service which are used by him in providing the output service, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and includes services, used in relation to setting up, modernization, used in premises of provider of output service or an office ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is further held that the appellant have not disclosed availment of Cenvat credit in respect of input services and hence suppressed the facts; Learned Counsel states that such facts are not obtaining in the facts of their case; it is admitted fact that they have filed Returns and maintained proper books of account and registers; the whole demand is only by way of change of opinion in the course of audit; further, appellant have admitted substantial amounts and reversed the same on being objected to by Revenue under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules as well as disallowance in part of the Cenvat Credit; further, under the facts and circumstances extended period of limitation is not attracted, there being no case of fraud, suppression etc; accordingly, penalty under Section 78 is also liable to be set aside; Learned Counsel further points out that Section 78 was not invoked in the show cause notice dated 31.5.2014 for the subsequent period. We are not inclined to accept the argument of Learned Authorised Representative reliance on the impugned order for upholding of the penalty. 12. Considering the rival contentions, we find that no case of suppression, fraud, etc. is made out agai....