2025 (7) TMI 1545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, renting of immovable property services etc. On verification of the ST-3 returns filed by the Appellant for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, it is observed that they have availed and utilized the ineligible inputs services. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated and the Adjudication authority as per the impugned order, confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalty under various provisions of law. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the issue is no more res integra and in Appellant's own case for the first period from June, 2007 to March 2009 on very same issue, demand was confirmed and in Appeal, this Tribunal vide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....24,80,609/- 5. The Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant is providing taxable services including renting of immovable property. The Adjudication Authority confirmed the demand without considering the Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prevailing prior to 01.04.2011 where the expression input service both inclusively and exhaustively so as to encompass in rule 2(1) - "any service used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, and includes services used in relation to setting up...... the premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such... premises. The impugned order has not appreciated that all the input services in question were eligible. The learned counsel for the Appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Association Vs. CCE, 2016 (41) STR 833 (Tri-Mum.) (vii) Oberoi Mall Ltd Vs. CST, 2017 (47) STR 292 (Tri-Mum.) (viii) Agriculture Product Market Committee Vs. CCE, 2013 (30) STR 558 (ix) Navratna SG Highway Prop. Pvt. Ltd vs. CST, 2012 (28) STR 166 (T) (x) CCE Vs. Dymos India Automotive Pvt Ltd, 2019 (365) ELT 26 (Mad.) (xi) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd., 1967 (63) ITR 478 (xii) Orient Paper Mills Ltd Vs. UOI 1978 (2) ELT J 345 (SC) (xiii) UOI Vs. Ratan Metling & Wire Inds, 2008 (231) ELT 22 (SC-Constitution Bench) (xiv) CCT Vs. Vanenburg IT Park Solutions Pvt. Ltd, 2024 (7) TMI 1399 Telangana HC. 6. The Learned Counsel further s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he said Goods/Services do not qualify as Input/Input Services as defined under Rule 2 of CCR 2004. Board's Circular No. 98/1/2008 ST dated 04.01.2008, which appellant states not applicable in the fact of the case is totally unacceptable in as much as the said Circular clearly confirms the ineligibility of the credit on services, used for construction of immovable property, which are neither Goods or Services. Ld AR further submits that since the Revenue Appeal in Appellant's own case is pending before Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP (Civil) 9952/2023 and considering the conflicting Interpretation, craves for awaiting for Outcome of SC Judgement. 8. Heard both sides. The issues involved is denial of cenvat credit on various input services na....