2025 (1) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owing the cenvat credit amount and directing recovery thereof along with interest and penalty was set aside. 2. The respondent M/s. Krish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Alwar  is engaged in providing taxable service of 'Construction of Residential Complex' 'Real Estate Agent Services' and 'Business Auxiliary Services'. During the audit of records by officers of the Central Excise Audit Commissionerate, Jaipur, it was observed that the respondent had wrongly availed cenvat credit of service tax on Commissions/Brokerage paid to Commission Agents on sale of flats during the period from January, 2014 to March, 2015, in violation of Rule 2(1) and 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the service does not qualify as 'input service' under Rule 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18. In the said case, the learned Member considered the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-I 2016(335) ELT 660 (Tri.-Ahmd.), which was passed holding that Explanation to Rule 2(l) of the Rules inserted vide Notification No.2/2016-CX (NT) dated 03.02.2016) is declaratory in nature and retrospectively effective. The relevant paragraph of the decision is quoted as below:- "20. But, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) was unable to concur with the contrary view taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Ambika Overseas (supra). The Hon'ble Gujarat High Cour....