TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned Order-in-Appeal learned Commissioner has passed the order as under:- "5. In view of the above, I modify the impugned order dated 19.03.2018, as under:- (i) Confirmation of demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit is reduced to Rs.98,765/- alongwith interest; (ii) Penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Credit Rules, is reduced to Rs.49,383/-; and (iii) Confirmation of demand of Service Tax (including Cessess) of Rs.6,76,049/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.3,38,025/-, are upheld." 2. There are two issues to be decided by us; (i) Admissibility of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on services provided by Container Corporation of India Ltd. during the period from June, 2015 to March, 2016 on GTA Service fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was established, M/s Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd Indian Rayon. requested East Central Railways, Dhanbad Division for a manned 'C' Level Crossing between KM 103/1-2 between RNQ-JGF Stations. The request made was accepted by Eastern Railways on the condition that the entire expenses for construction of level Crossing along with yearly recurring charges for the two gatemen shall be borne by Indian Rayon. That on acceptance of aforesaid conditions by M/s Indian Rayon., East Central Railways constructed 'C' Level Crossing between KM 103/1-2 between RNQ-JGF Stations and since then, the recurring charges of two gatemen employed by Railways at the crossing were borne by M/s Indian Rayon then Hi-Tech Carbon and now by the Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo gate keepers of railway crossing. As the charges were not in respect of any service provided by Railways to Appellant, hence neither Railways charged service tax on the same, nor Appellant paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism. 5. It is the case of the Appellant that the road on which the Railway crossing constructed is road in town where road and Railway traffic is heavy hence the same was used by general public and not only by the Appellant. It is also not in dispute that the two gatemen were placed under the directions of Railways, they were employed by Railways, their administrative control was always with Railways and the crossing was constructed by Railways in discharge of its statutory function to provide safe access to....