2024 (5) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from December, 2015 to June, 2017, it was observed that the Appellant had taken Cenvat credit of Rs.7,93,793/- which was paid by them on Civil Construction Work. The Department entertained a view that this Cenvat credit was not available to them and accordingly show cause notice [SCN] dated 23.10.2017 was issued proposing to disallow and recover the Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the SCN alongwith applicable interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal before the first Appellate Authority, the learned Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, After going through the above definition of Input Service, it is obvious that service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services used for construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods do not fall within the purview of definition of "Input Services" in terms of Rule 2(1) (A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I also perused the copy of list of Cenvat Credit taken on Civil Construction work from December-2015 to June-2017, as provided by the appellant, and observed that in the last column of the list the appellant h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicability of interest does not arise. 5.2 As regards penalty, I find that the appellant had already made the reversal twice on the same issue and even then they again took the inadmissible Cenvat credit knowingly and willfully on the same services, on which they had made reversal. Therefore, they contravened the provisions of Rule 2(l)(A), 2 & 3 of CCR, 2004, and attracted penal clause under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 6. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified to the above extent and appeal filed by the appellant bearing No.304/CE/Noida/APPL/NOI/2020-21 dated 28.08.2020 is rejected in terms of above." 3. Being aggrieved the Appellant filed the appeal before this Tribu....