TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Co-operative Sugar Factory and is also holding Service Tax registration and is engaged in the manufacture of sugar falling under CETH 17011490 and molasses under CETH 17031000 and are availing the cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on capital goods, input and input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant undertook renovation project of their sugar unit and for that work they have engaged M/s. Manana Construction and M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. During the audit of the unit, it was observed by the Department that the appellant has wrongly availed cenvat credit of service tax to the extent of Rs. 33,63,072/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il construction does not attract any service tax and only VAT is levied and with regard to the remaining two contracts which are purely service contracts and service tax is payable on the same. He further submitted that with regard to the tax invoice issued by Manana Construction, service tax to the extent of Rs. 33,63072/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand and Seventy Two only) and Swachh Bharath cess of Rs. 1,20,109/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Nine only) was paid and the same was availed as cenvat credit. He further submitted that during the audit itself, appellant has reversed the amount of Rs. 8,40,768/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight only) availed on service tax pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is no composite service/contract involved. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant in the invoice issued by Manana Construction dated 17/06/2016 labour charges upto 40% has been shown but what is the basis of the same has not been clearly explained by the appellant. He further submitted that though the appellant has produced agreements between the appellant and the Manana Construction as well as different agreements with M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. but all these documents were not produced before the original authority as has been observed by the original authority in its order dated 08/12/2017 in para 8.4. He further submitted that in the absence of production of all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts but all the contracts entered into between the appellant and two different parties viz. Manana Construction and M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. have not been produced before the original authority to verify the claim of the appellant. Further, I find that in para 8.4 of the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner wherein he has recorded that the appellant has not filed any supporting documents such as agreement copy, work order etc and has only made a bald statement which cannot be relied for granting any benefit to the appellant. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they have produced a relevant documents before the authorities below but the same were not considered. In view of these circumstances....