TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant and after the order in original number 155 of 2011 dated 30.11.2011. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in providing maintenance and repair services for program logic controlled operations at thermal power stations. During audit of the Appellant's accounts by the internal audit group of Chennai Service Tax Commissionerate, it was noticed that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on certain ineligible input services and capital goods. Hence, show cause notice dated 16.04.2010 demanding Cenvat Credit of Rs.31,47,282/- allegedly wrongly availed and utilized during the period April 2008 to March 2009 was issued. 3. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority, vide the Order in Original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Sons. As per normal commercial practice, the appellant had engaged their architect M/s. Uma Shankar Associates to supervise the construction activities of the contractor M/s. Karuppiah and Sons and had authorised the said Architect to check and approve the periodical bills submitted. Learned Consultant submits that, as can be seen from the annexure to the show cause notice, the appellant had taken Cenvat Credit on three bills and while the first two bills raised by M/s. Karuppaiyah Sons in the name of the appellant was allowed, the credit taken on the third bill, though it was on the account of the appellant whose name and Siruseri Plant address was duly incorporated, was merely denied because it was addressed to the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating the goods as furniture. Ld Consultant submitted that what is termed as furniture is actually an equipment used to house the computers and other sophisticated control equipment necessary for the appellant to provide his services to the thermal power station. Hence, the credit taken on such equipment required for the appellant's usage in the maintenance service is legal and ought to be allowed. 7. Shri N. Satyanarayana, Learned Authorized Representative, appeared for the respondent and reiterated the findings of the Learned Appellate Authority. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records and the case laws provided as relied upon. 9. The only issues that arise for our consideration is whether the demand of cenva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Umashankar & Associates instead of the appellant and that later they had corrected the invoice in the name of the appellant 11. We note the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the decision in Vimal Enterprise v Union of India, 2006 (195) ELT 267 (Guj), observed as under: "18...If on facts, it is possible to find out that the transaction is genuine and bona fide transaction, the identity of the supplier is established, the document showing duty paid inputs is supported by the facts, and the records of the supplier show that the supplier has purchased duty paid goods before resale and passed on the credit of duty, there is no reason why the benefit should be denied. Once the object for which a provision is enacted is satisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on a mere suspicion that it might have been utilized by another, without any concrete evidence that it had been done so, may not have been the correct approach in these circumstances. The efforts, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the decision of Vimal Enterprises supra, should have been to ensure that the cenvat scheme is not frustrated and it was incumbent on the authorities to have guided the appellant as what is expected of the appellant to remedy the perceived fault. It is not in dispute that the services were rendered to the appellant and that payment for the said services received was made by the appellant. Given that the matter has been agitated till this forum and is now supported with the averments of the service pro....