Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would draw our attention to the demand of Rs.7,53,276/- and submit that this demand was prior to the period 18/04/2006. He would submit that the demand has been confirmed against the appellant only on the ground that the appellant being recipient of consulting engineering service, by virtue of reverse charge mechanism, appellant is liable to pay the service tax. He would submit that the issue is now squarely settled by the judgment of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI [2009(13) STR 235 (Bom.)] and the ratio of the same has been reiterated by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CST, Bangalore Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. [2010(20) STR 307 (Kar.)]. It is also his submission that the SLP filed against the judgment of the Indian National Shipowners Association has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court. As regards the denial of cenvat credit to the tune of Rs.1,04,875/- and Rs.85,185/-, it is his submission that the amount of Rs.1,04,875/- has been denied only on the ground that common input service has been used and the same has been availed for rendering the services which are taxable as well as exempted. It is his submission that the appellant has been taking a stand right from the audit objection, that the services which were availed are not utilized for the purpose of rendering services of exempted or non-taxable services. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has not gone into detail and has not recorded any finding. As regards the credit of Rs.85,185/-, it is his submission that they have documentary evidences to show that the service tax liability has been discharged by the architect and interior designers. It is his submission that the amounts which have been paid by the appellant to the architect and interior designers were on a running bill account and on the completion of the contract, the architect and / interior designers have discharged the service tax liability which has been collected from the appellant to the authorities. He would draw our attention to the certificate issued by the said service provider which is at page No. 95 of the appeal memorandum.