9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the setting up of factory are squarely covered by the inclusion part of the definition - While denying CENVAT credit on some of the input services on the above technical ground, the learned Commissioner did not dispute the tax-paid nature of the services and the nexus of the services with the business of manufacture of cement - Prima facie the appellant has case in their favour against the CENVAT credit denied on the input services – appellant directed to pre-deposit Rupees Fifty Lakhs – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted. - Appeal No. 756/2011 - MISC. ORDER No. 25824/2013 - Dated:- 1-5-2013 - Mr. P.G. Chacko and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. K. S. Rav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on record, appear to be immovable structures. Prima facie, the aforesaid materials were used for erecting immovable structures in the factory site. The learned counsel has argued that the immovability/non-excisability of the structures resulting from the fabrication is immaterial insofar as admissibility of CENVAT credit on the aforesaid materials is concerned. In this connection, he has also submitted that the decision of this Bench in the case of KCP Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2009 (237) E.L.T. 500 (Tri.-Bang.)] is in support of his argument and that the said decision of the Tribunal has been approved by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2010 (250) E.L.T. 326 (Kar.)]. On a perusal of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer. Prima facie, the aforesaid materials used in the manufacture of immovable structures are not covered by the explanation. It is true that the period of dispute is almost entirely prior to 07.07.2009 but this fact does not ipso facto go to support the appellant in the present context inasmuch as the amendment made to the above explanation under Notification No. 16/2009 CE (NT) dated 07.07.2009, which makes the appellant s case more precarious, has been held to have retrospective effect in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB)]. 2. We have also considered the appellant s case against denial of CENVAT credit on 17 input services. Many of the so-called input services were not so recognized by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
