2016 (11) TMI 94 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Input services in relation to construction and laying of water supply pipeline from Narmada Canal to the Appellant s factory - manufacture of Sodium Salt of Trichloro Pyridinol and Trichloro Acetyle Chloride falling under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that - the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of input service viz. construction and laying of pipeline for bringing water from Narmada river to the Appellant s factory used in the manufacture of Sodium Salt of Trichloro Pyridinol and Trichloro Acetyle Chloride - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Eligibility of CENVAT Credit for input services related to construction and laying of water supply pipeline.

In this case, the appellant, engaged in manufacturing specific chemicals, availed CENVAT Credit for input services related to the construction and laying of a water supply pipeline from Narmada Canal to their factory. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing denial of the credit and imposition of penalty, which was confirmed upon adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that the service tax paid for laying the pipeline qualifies as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, citing a relevant tribunal judgment. The Revenue representative supported the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal, considering the necessity of the water supply for manufacturing operations and the precedent set by a previous case, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law.

This judgment primarily revolves around the eligibility of CENVAT Credit for input services, specifically the construction and laying of a water supply pipeline. The appellant contended that the service tax paid for this activity falls under the definition of 'input service' as per the relevant rules. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support the appellant's argument, emphasizing the necessity of the water supply for the manufacturing process. The decision highlights the importance of meeting the criteria for 'input service' eligibility under the CENVAT Credit Rules and the relevance of precedents in such matters.

The case underscores the significance of understanding and applying the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules in the context of specific manufacturing operations. It showcases the importance of justifying the eligibility of claimed credits based on the operational requirements and necessities, such as the essential nature of water supply for manufacturing activities. The judgment reinforces the need for consistency in interpreting and applying tax laws and rules related to credit eligibility, as demonstrated by the reliance on a previous tribunal decision to support the appellant's position.

Overall, the judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of 'input service' eligibility concerning the construction and laying of a water supply pipeline for manufacturing purposes. By setting aside the lower authorities' decisions and allowing the appeal, the Tribunal establishes the importance of aligning credit claims with the operational needs and statutory provisions, emphasizing the relevance of legal precedents in determining such eligibility issues.