9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1379 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services or not - after sales service - extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - In the appellant s own case for the prior period, this Tribunal in JCB INDIA LTD. VERSUS CCE- DELHI-IV 2023 (5) TMI 133 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH allowed the appeal of the appellant by relying upon the ratio of the various decisions of the Tribunal, where it was held that the appellant has correctly availed cenvat credit on the amount of service tax paid for the services provided by the dealers to the customers on behalf of the appellant for fulfilling the warranty obligations of the appellant. Extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - The department has not produced any material to show that there is suppression on the part of the appellant with intend to evade payment of service tax. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against the order confirming demand of duty, interest, and penalty by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, Haryana.
Summary: Issue 1: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on after-sales services during warranty period The appellant, engaged in manufacturing earth moving machineries, provided free services to customers during the warranty period through dealers. The tax paid by dealers on after-sales services was claimed as credit under CENVAT Credit Rules. Two show cause notices were issued proposing to deny the credit, leading to the present appeals. The appellant argued that the issue had been decided in their favor previously by the Tribunal and cited various decisions supporting their claim. The Tribunal, considering the submissions and prior rulings, allowed the appeal, stating that the services were indirectly related to the manufacture of final products, and there was no evidence of suppression by the appellant to evade service tax. Decision: The Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief as per law. The Tribunal emphasized that the credit on warranty services provided free of cost during the warranty period through third parties cannot be denied. The department failed to show any suppression on the part of the appellant to evade service tax, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.
|
