2024 (2) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per K. Anpazhakan, The present appeal has been filed against the impugned Order in Appeal No. 65/2014 dated 2.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), LTU, Chennai wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand confirmed in the Order in Original and rejected th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pted services as per the provisions of Rule 6(3)(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As the appellant has not paid the 6% of the value of the exempted services, Show Cause Notice was issued and after due process, the demands were confirmed in the OO and on appeal, the demands confirmed were upheld in the impugned order. 3. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant submits that the works contract....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....find that the issue involved in the present appeal is related to reversal of CENVAT credit attributed to common input services used in taxable and exempted services. It is a fact on record that the appellant has rendered works contract service to Chennai Airport which are specifically excluded from the levy of service tax as provided under clause (zzzza) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Act. Since no service tax is leviable on the works contract service rendered by the appellant to Chennai Airport project, these services have been rightly considered as exempted services by the authorities below. Thus, we find that the demand has been rightly confirmed in the impugned order. Accordingly, we uphold the demand of Rs.42,81,673/- being equal to 6% of the value of the exempted serv....