9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1876 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Erection, Commissioning and Installation services utilized in respect of construction of new shed in their factory premises - HELD THAT - Both, the original adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority have relied on this exclusion clause for denying the credit on the services used by the appellant. It is not disputed that the services received by the appellant is classified as Erection, Commissioning and Installation service . The exclusion clause A in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, does not cover the service in the nature of Erection, Commissioning and Installation service . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit on Erection, Commissioning, and Installation services used for construction of a new shed in factory premises. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the denial of Cenvat credit on services utilized for constructing a new shed. The appellant argued that the services obtained were for Erection, Commissioning, and Installation, not falling under the exclusion clause of the definition of Input Service. The appellant contended that the exclusion clause did not cover the specific services they received, hence the credit should not be denied. On the other hand, the AR for the respondent supported the denial of credit, stating that the services were used for construction purposes. The exclusion clause 'A' of the definition of Input Service was crucial in this case, as it pertained to services used for construction or execution of works contract of a building or civil structure, or laying of foundation for support of capital goods. Both the original and appellate authorities relied on this exclusion clause to deny the credit. However, the Tribunal found that the services received by the appellant, namely Erection, Commissioning, and Installation services, did not fall under the exclusion clause. Therefore, the impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
