9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 984 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - services availed for setting up of the factory - Held that - It is only with effect from 1-4-2011 by amendment to the Rule 2(l) that words setting up were omitted. The period of dispute in this case is from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 i.e. the period prior to 1-4-2011 when the definition of input service specifically included the services used in relation to setting up of the factory or premises of the provider of output service. Thus the services in question used for setting up of factory have to be treated as input service and would be eligible for Cenvat credit as the factory has been setup for manufacture of final products which are liable to Central Excise duty. Therefore denial of Cenvat credit in question is contrary to the provisions of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. We find that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Bellsonica Auto Component India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 876 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) and also in the case of Madhusudan Auto Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 554 - CESTAT NEW DELHI). The impugned order therefore is not sustainable - The same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit for services used in setting up a factory. 2. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Applicability of precedent judgments on similar issues. Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat Credit for services used in setting up a factory: The appellant, a manufacturer of construction equipment and earth movers, availed Cenvat Credit for services used in setting up their factory. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice for recovery of the Cenvat Credit amount, arguing that services used for setting up an immovable property are not eligible for credit. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant contended that the services were covered under the definition of 'input service' during the disputed period and should be eligible for Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal noted that the services were indeed used for setting up the factory, which falls under the definition of 'input service' during the relevant period. Denial of Cenvat credit for these services was deemed contrary to the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal referred to precedent judgments supporting this interpretation and held that the impugned order was unsustainable, ultimately allowing the appeal. Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which included services used in relation to setting up a factory or premises before an amendment omitted the term 'setting up.' During the period of dispute (2008-2009 to 2009-2010), the definition explicitly covered services related to setting up the factory. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of Cenvat Credit for services used in setting up the factory was inconsistent with the provisions of the rule. By citing the specific wording of the rule and the timeline of the amendment, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to claim Cenvat Credit for the services in question. Issue 3: Applicability of precedent judgments on similar issues: The appellant relied on previous judgments, including Bellsonica Auto Component India Pvt. Ltd. and Madhusudan Auto Ltd., where the Tribunal had held that services used in setting up factory premises were eligible for Cenvat Credit. These precedents supported the appellant's argument that the impugned order was incorrect. The Tribunal acknowledged the consistency in these decisions and found that the reasoning in the cited judgments applied to the present case. By aligning with the principles established in previous rulings, the Tribunal further strengthened the appellant's position and ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
|
