2023 (6) TMI 5 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - expenditure incurred in constructing and maintaining Fly Ash Handling Plant facility at the supplier s premises to meet its requirement of manufacture of cement - sole ground of denial of such Cenvat Credit was that such Fly Ash plant is situated outside the factory of the Respondent - HELD THAT - In the cases of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR VERSUS M/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD 2015 (1) TMI 543 - CESTAT MUMBAI , AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -SURAT-I 2022 (6) TMI 819 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and M/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE, NAGPUR 2019 (9) TMI 1194 - CESTAT MUMBAI consistently this Tribunal has allowed benefits of availment of input services to the present Respondent in respect of Service Tax paid towards handling charges of Fly Ash facilities. There are force in the argument led on behalf of the Respondent Company since the same is solely based on the judicial precedent and guidelines issued by the Government of India. Further there is nothing mentioned in the Cenvat Credit Rules that credits on inputs or input services are allowed only when it is received within the factory premises. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issue involves denial of Cenvat Credit to the Respondent by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the location of the input services received by the Respondent for constructing and maintaining a facility outside the factory premises.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal, in this case, dealt with the appeal filed by the Appellant department challenging the reversal of the denial of Cenvat Credit to the Respondent by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Respondent had demanded Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid towards expenditure on constructing and maintaining a Fly Ash Handling Plant facility outside the factory premises. The Adjudication order confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

In the appeal, the Appellant department argued that the input services were received outside the factory premises and hence should not be eligible for Cenvat Credit. However, the Respondent cited judicial precedents and guidelines to support their claim that there is no requirement for input services to be received within the factory premises as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent, emphasizing that the rules do not specify that credits on inputs or input services are allowed only when received within the factory premises.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the Respondent, with consequential relief if any.