9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 667 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - erection/commissioning of machinery, which is used for manufacture of sugar - Held that - These impugned services fall in the definition of input service even after 1.4.2011 - in the case of Uni Abex Alloy Products 2019 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT BANGALORE , this Tribunal has held that it is a settled law that CENVAT credit is available if the impugned services are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and if the nexus of such services with the manufacture is established. Further, it has consistently been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the words in relation to manufacture have been used to widen and explain the scope, meaning and content of the definition and applying the same ratio, CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services is admissible so far as input services have been used directly or in directly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product even if the term setting up has been deleted from the inclusive portion of the definition. Also, in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2013 (11) TMI 987 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , CENVAT credit on erection, commissioning and installation services have been allowed. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT credit on certain input services related to setting up a sugar factory. - Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' post-amendment from 1.4.2011. - Nexus of the impugned services with the manufacture of final products. - Applicability of CENVAT credit on erection, commissioning, and installation services. - Bar on limitation for demanding irregularly availed CENVAT credit. Analysis: The appeal challenged the Commissioner (A)'s rejection of the appellant's appeal against the demand for irregularly availed CENVAT credit on specific input services related to setting up a sugar factory. The appellant contended that the impugned order failed to properly appreciate the definition of 'input service' post-amendment from 1.4.2011. The appellant argued that the services in question were essential for the manufacture of their final product, sugar, and thus fell within the ambit of 'input service'. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the demand was time-barred as there was no intent to evade duty, citing various precedents to support their position. The learned AR, on the other hand, defended the impugned order, asserting that the credit on civil structures supporting capital goods was excluded from the definition of 'input service' post-amendment from 1.4.2011. After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed availed credit on erection and commissioning of machinery crucial for sugar manufacturing, which qualified as an 'input service' even post-amendment. Citing precedents like Uni Abex Alloy Products and Birla Corporation Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the broad interpretation of 'in relation to manufacture' and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the denial of CENVAT credit on erection, commissioning, and installation services was not legally sustainable, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant. As the appeal was allowed on merit, the Tribunal did not delve into the question of limitation for demanding the irregularly availed CENVAT credit. The decision was pronounced in open court on 11/03/2019 by Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.
|
