9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 47 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - repair and maintenance of wind mill which is located outside the factory premises - denial of credit on the ground that the wind mill is located outside the factory premises - HELD THAT - An identical issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD VERSUS ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD 2015 (6) TMI 82 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein after considering various judgments, it was held that management, maintenance and repair of windmills installed by the respondents is input service as defined by clause l of Rule 2. Rule 3 and 4 provide that any input or capital goods received in the factory or any input service received by manufacture of final product would be susceptible to CENVAT credit. Rule does not say that input service received by a manufacturer must be received at the factory premises. The ratio of the above judgment is applicable in the present case. Accordingly, irrespective of the fact that windmill is located outside the factory premises, repair and maintenance service is admissible for Cenvat credit in terms of rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved: Entitlement of Cenvat Credit for repair and maintenance of wind mill located outside factory premises.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addressed the issue of whether the appellants are entitled to Cenvat Credit for the repair and maintenance of a wind mill situated outside the factory premises. The appellant did not appear, while the Revenue was represented by Shri J.A. Patel, Superintendent. The Tribunal considered the denial of Cenvat Credit by lower authorities due to the wind mill's location outside the factory premises. Reference was made to a previous case involving a similar issue, where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the entitlement to Cenvat Credit for services related to windmills situated away from the factory. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, particularly Rule 2(B)(k), (1), 3, and 4, defining "input" and "input service." The judgment highlighted the broad interpretation of "input service" encompassing services directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, as established in previous court decisions. The Tribunal referred to specific judgments, such as Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd., and Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.Ex. Belapur, emphasizing the comprehensive scope of "input service" under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Division Bench rulings underscored that the definition of input service includes services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, with a broad and inclusive approach. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument challenging the cited judgment, stating that both appeals were dismissed. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that repair and maintenance services for windmills, even if located outside the factory premises, are eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the entitlement to Cenvat Credit for repair and maintenance services related to windmills situated outside the factory premises, aligning with the broad interpretation of "input service" under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The ruling emphasized the applicability of previous court decisions in similar cases and upheld the admissibility of Cenvat credit in such scenarios.
|
