Case Law Details

Case Name : Punjan Builders Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax (Ahmedabad – CESTAT
Appeal Number : 2016 (65) 27
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

CA Bimal Jain

CA Bimal JainFacts:

Punjan Builders (“the Appellant”) was engaged in the business of providing construction services in respect of the Commercial or Industrial buildings and civil structures. The Appellant availed the benefit of abatement of 67% as provided under erstwhile Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated March 1, 2006. However, the Department denied the benefit of abatement on the ground that the Appellant has violated the condition of abatement by taking Cenvat credit and thereby, raised the demand of Service tax along with interest and penalty even though the Appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit so taken along with interest.


The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relying upon the judgments of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE [1996 736 (SC)] and Leotronics Scales (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE [Final Order No. 50894 of 2015, dated 23-1-2015], held that when the Appellant has reversed the Cenvat credit amount inadvertently availed earlier along with the interest from the date of availment upto the date of reversal of credit, benefit of abatement cannot be denied.

Our Comments:

Erstwhile Abatement Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated March 1, 2006 has been superseded vide Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012 effective from July 1, 2012, however inference of stated judgment can be applied in present scenario as well.

(Author can be reached at Email:

Read Other Articles from CA Bimal Jain

Author Bio

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3395)
Type : Articles (17631)
Tags : CA Bimal Jain (695) Cestat judgments (937)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *