9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 531 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input service - Construction Service - the invoice of Construction Service on which the Credit was availed issued on 24.08.2011 - case of Department is that Construction Service was excluded from the purview of definition of inputs service - Held that - As per the completion Certificate produced by the appellant even to the lower authority, it is clear that the service was completed as on 25.03.2011 for which the invoice was issued on 28.04.2011. In view of this certificate, there is no dispute that the service was completed prior to 01.04.2011. Tribunal in the case Kamal Rub Plast Industries Pvt. Ltd 2016 (5) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , wherein the identical situation was existing and the Tribunal has held that the credit cannot be denied for the delay in issuing the invoice. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Denial of Cenvat Credit for Construction Service received before 01.04.2011. Analysis: The appeal challenged the denial of Cenvat Credit for Construction Service received by the appellant before 01.04.2011. The department contended that since the invoice for the service was issued on 24.08.2011 after the exclusion of Construction Service from the definition of inputs service from 01.04.2011, the appellant was not entitled to the Credit. The appellant argued that the Construction Service in question was received before 01.04.2011, supported by a Chartered Engineer Certificate confirming completion on 25.03.2011. They relied on a Board's Circular allowing credit for Construction Service completed before 01.04.2011. They cited a precedent (Kamal Rub Plast Industry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of c. Ex., Delhi-III) to support their position. The appellant also contested the lower Authority's finding that credit for immovable property like Construction Service was inadmissible, citing another Tribunal judgment (Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III). On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that since the invoice was issued on 28.04.2011, the credit was not admissible post 01.04.2011 due to the exclusion clause. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented. It noted that the completion Certificate confirmed the service was completed before 01.04.2011, aligning with the Board's Circular allowing credit for services completed pre-01.04.2011. The Tribunal referenced a previous case (Kamal Rub Plast Industries Pvt. Ltd) where delayed invoicing did not impact credit entitlement for pre-01.04.2011 services. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of Construction Service being an immovable property, clarifying that the definition of inputs service explicitly included Construction Service for Cenvat Credit. It cited a relevant precedent (Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) and other Tribunal judgments to support this interpretation. Conclusively, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal based on the completion date of the Construction Service and the explicit inclusion of Construction Service in the definition of inputs service for Cenvat Credit.
|
