TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiplexes, etc. popularly known as "Malls". The appellant registered itself with the Service Tax Department for Renting of Immovable Property Service, Maintenance and Repair Services, Advertising Services, GTA Services, Management Consultancy Services, etc., intended to be provided by them. The appellant availed the credit on inputs like cement, steel, angles, channels etc., and input services like construction services, consultancy, architect and allied services etc., used by them in the construction of "Malls". 4. An Audit of the records of the appellant was conducted and the Department opined that the appellant is not eligible to avail such credit. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued and was confirmed by order dated 10.02.2014 wherein recovery of CENVAT credit availed of Rs. 10,21,04,601/- and CENVAT credit utilized of Rs. 6,45,131/- was confirmed under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 (herein after referred to the Credit Rules) along with applicable interest and equal penalty was imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Shri Sumit Nema, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Navin Khandelwal and Shir Piyush Parashar appearing on behalf of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed credit of Rs. 15,87,634/- and declared it in the ST-3 Returns filed up to March 2013 and intimated the Department by letter dated 16.02.2016 well before the issuance of the Show-Cause-Notice. In addition to the same, the appellant also reversed Rs,51,500/, Rs. 9,99,77,995/- and intimated in the return for the period October 2014 to March 2015 and April 2015 to September 2015, respectively. The final balance of Rs. 51,717/- was also reversed by intimating the Department. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by this Bench in M/s Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs [Service Tax Appeal No. 50615 of 2015 decided on 26.06.2019 ]. He also relies upon the following cases: I. Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Sai Samhita Storages (Private) Limited [[2012] 17 Taxman.com 107 (AP) and other cases.] II. Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs [2015-TIOL-1288-HC-AHM-ST ] III. Galaxy Mercantiles Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate [20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant has not submitted evidence to establish the availability of credit. It is also the contention that the appellant has not submitted the requisite documents/ information and suppressed facts. 12. In so far as the argument of Revenue regarding absence of nexus between input services and output services, we find that the Tribunal has gone into this issue in several cases. It is seen that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the appellant. 13. In DLF Promenade Limited, the Tribunal observed: "20. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the High Courts, there is no manner of doubt that CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on inputs, inputs services and capital goods service used for construction of the Mall, which was ultimately let out could not have been denied to the appellant. The findings to the contrary recorded by the Commissioner cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set aside. 21. The only issue that now remains to be decided is whether the amendment made with effect from 1 April, 2011 in the definition of "input service" will be applicable to the facts of the present case since the period of dispute in the second show cause notice is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit availed prior to 01.04.2011, has been settled in principle. It is also on record that the appellant reversed the credit availed by it after 01.04.2011 and intimated the Department. The demand in instant case pertains to the credit availed by the appellant before 01.04.2011. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the appellant has correctly availed the credit on inputs and input services, the duty and tax on which has been paid by the appellant. To that extent, the impugned order is not sustainable. 16. Having decided the issue on merits, we turn our attention to the other issues like time bar and availability of credit to the appellant. The appellant submits that it had been regularly filing the ST-3 Returns and as such nothing was suppressed by it so as to invoke of the extended period. 17. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative submits that there was no mention of CENVAT credit in the Returns filed till September 2009 and an opening balance has been shown in the Returns filed for the period October 2009 to March 2010. 18. This contention of Revenue appears to be factually incorrect. The learned Counsel for the appellant has demon....