9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1192 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - various input services - Revenue says that when the appellant was not the manufacturer of boiler, it is not entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit on the services - Held that - The appellant may not be a manufacturer but the services provided by the appellant as a consulting engineer was not denied by Revenue - The services so provided were also in relation to installation of the boiler as well as designing thereof to ensure that the boiler is manufactured according to the design to meet to the need of the buyers - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on input services by a service provider not being the manufacturer of the final product. Analysis: The case involved a service provider who procured various input services for carrying on consulting services related to the supply and installation of a recovery boiler. The appellant claimed Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid on seven specific services. The Revenue contended that since the appellant was not the manufacturer of the boiler, it was not entitled to the Cenvat credit on the input services. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was noted that the appellant, although not the manufacturer of the boiler, provided essential services as a consulting engineer in relation to the installation and designing of the boiler. The Revenue did not deny the services provided by the appellant, which were crucial for ensuring that the boiler was manufactured according to the design to meet the buyer's requirements. The Tribunal found that the inputs procured by the appellant were indeed essential for providing the output service of a consulting engineer. Therefore, the denial of Cenvat credit was deemed inconceivable. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellate order. The judgment highlighted the significance of the services provided by the appellant in relation to the manufacturing and installation process, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellant regarding the entitlement to Cenvat credit on the input services, despite not being the manufacturer of the final product.
|
