TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant is providing taxable service under the category of construction service and also providing exempted service to SEZ developer. Since they are not maintaining separate accounts for taxable and exempted service, they were liable to demand under provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, a show cause notice was issued on 05.05.2010 for the period from 2007-2009 and Adjudication authority as per the impugned order confirmed the demand, appropriate amount paid by the appellant and also imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 2. As regarding availing the ineligible Cenvat credit, learned Chartered Accountant (CA) draw our attention to the definition of input serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T., BANGALORE, 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134. 4. As regarding Cenvat credit on services provided to SEZ, learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that nearly 75% of the activity involved is supply of goods. However, as per the Service tax demand 100% of the value of the project is included. In this regard learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that goods are moved under a cover of sale invoices, ARE-1 and Form 1 and these documents are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of maintaining separate accounts. In appellant's case, in order to identify the allocation of cost, the appellant maintains project based cost centre, wherein cost in respect of each project could be duly ascertained by the appellant. On the basis of such cost centre the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sus INDIA CEMENTS LTD., 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 425 (Telangana) iii) PRINCIPAL C.C.E., BANGALORE-I versus POWER CONTROL EQUIPMENTS (UNIT-II), 2016 (336) E.L.T. 284 (Kar.). 6. As regarding the service tax confirm on import of service from associated enterprises, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the Adjudication Authority blindly confirmed the same without considering the nature of transaction. As regards to Service Tax liability based on book adjustment was blindly confirmed without examining as to nature of transaction, as the impugned order confirmed the demand as import of services. However in order to consider the demand under import of services, the consideration for the same should have been made by the appellant, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it team, the appellant reversed Rs. 4,35,786/- on 17.12.2009 with interest of Rs. 1,29,446/-. Learned CA also draw our attention to the GAR-7 challan dated 18.12.2009. But show cause notice was issued aforesaid amount also on 05.05.2010. Since, said amount was paid before issue of show cause notice, impugned order confirming said demand with interest and penalty are unsustainable. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) relied on the decision of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prathiba Processors Vs. UOI - 1996 (88) ELT 12 (SC), and further relied on following cases; Landis + GYR Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2013 (290) ELT 447 (Tri.-Kolkata), GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. CC - 2017 (49) STR 242 (Tri.-Bang.), ETA Engineering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if the amendments made by sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times. (3) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to make rules with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to make rules under section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, retrospectively, at all material times." 11. Heard both sides and perused the records. As regarding supply of material to SEZ, issue was considering by this Tribunal in the matter of Sujana Metal products Ltd Vs. CC.Ex., Hyderabad (Supra) and held that as per the amendment to Rule 6(1) of the CCR, 2004 by the amending Notification No. 50/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ARE-1 and Form 1 and these documents are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of maintaining separate accounts. Further to identify the allocation of cost, the appellant maintains project-based cost centre, and on the basis of such cost centre, appellant is claiming that they have allocated cenvat credit of Rs. 30,93,539/- pertaining to SEZ project including Rs. 14,64,836/- for 2007-08 and Rs. 16,28,703/- for 2008-09. However, without specifying any reason to invoke Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 adjudication authority confirmed demand of Rs. 2,98,06,557/-. Since there is no finding regarding computation of Rs. 30,93,539/-. arrived by the appellant under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, to ascertain the facts, issue has to ....