2024 (9) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] The assessee were paying service charges in respect of various contracts awarded to service providers. As a matter of precaution, the assessee-appellant were retaining 10% of the total value of the services provided, which was to be released by them subsequently after being satisfied with the services rendered. The assessee were availing CENVAT Credit for the entire 100% of the service value, on which the Service Tax was indicated in the invoices. 2. The Revenue took the view that since they were not paying to the extent of 10% of the invoice value, the assessee-appellant is not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 23.01.2012 was issued, inter alia, to deny CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.13,34,13,383/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeal No. 1228 of 2011 [2017 (4) TMI 1323 - CESTAT, New Delhi]; it is submitted that in both these decisions, the issue was identical and the Tribunal has held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the retained portion of the invoice value. Accordingly, relying upon these case-laws, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee-appellant prays that their appeal may be allowed. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that the Revenue has filed this appeal only because of the re-quantification undertaken by the ld. adjudicating authority, which does not call for resulting in dropping of a huge portion of the demand on this count alone. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal papers and other documents placed before us. 8. We fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s above, we find the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." 8.1. In another identical issue in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II [2017 (4) TMI 1323 - CESTAT, New Delhi], the Tribunal held as under: - "2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of lead and zinc. The appellant has awarded contracts to various prestigious companies for erection, installation, commissioning works etc. in relation to various projects. In all the cases, the agreements provided that a certain percentage of the stipulated payment would be withheld on account of performance guarantee. This payment would be made at the end of ....