9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. Various case laws stated by the appellant does not help the appellant's case for the reason that the facts involved therein were different and distinguishable. In an identical matter relating to dredging services in respect of Sanghi Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, Rajkot - [2008 (8) TMI 277 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], a co-ordinate bench at Ahmedabad took the view that the issue is contentious and accordingly, pre-deposit of about Rs.10 lakhs against the demand of Rs.55 lakhs was ordered. Therefore, it cannot be said that the issue is settled in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. However, there is a merit in the contention of the appellant that they had disclosed the fact of availing Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey undertake inward transportation of raw materials and outward transportation of finished goods. There is a water channel which provides access to the jetty which needs to be dredged to facilitate navigation of ships and barges. The said channel is a common channel which is also used by others including the appellant and to keep the water channel functional, they have been undertaking dredging of the channel on which they have paid service tax. It is their contention that the said activity of dredging would come within the purview of input services as defined under Rule 2 (l) and therefore, they are rightly entitled for the credit. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in appellant's own case reported in 2013 (31) STR 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no nexus between the dredging services and the manufacturing activities undertaken by the appellant and therefore, the denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on dredging service is correct in law. Accordingly, he pleads for putting the appellant to terms. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 From the facts of the case available on record, it is seen that the dredging is undertaken in the navigation channel which leads to the jetty of the appellant. The channel is not the private property of the appellant but belongs to the Maharashtra Maritime Board and the channel is also used not only by the appellant but also by several others and therefore, it cannot be said that the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
