9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. Regards the Cenvat Credit of the central excise duty paid on pipes - Held that:- The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (2000 (10) TMI 122 - CEGAT, CHENNAI) cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. - Decided against the assessee. - Appeal No. : E/905,944/2012-SM, E/13685/2013-SM - ORDER No. A/11191-11193/2014 - Dated:- 4-7-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, J. For the Appellant : Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri K. Sivakumar (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran; When these appeals were called out, I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices as these pipelines are not used within the factory premises. 4. Ld. Counsel would submit that as regards the credit of service tax paid on input services is rendered on pipes which is laid down from Narmada canal to their factory premises, judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of ONGC - 2012 (32) STR 31 (Bom.) would apply. As regards the Cenvat Credit of the central excise duty paid on pipes, he would submit that the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation - 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC) would apply. He would also draw my attention to the division bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Belgaum Vs. Bellary Steel and Alloys Ltd. - 2008 (226) ELT 280 (Tri. - Bang.) wherein identical issue came up befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice received by the manufacturer of final product or by the provider of output services on or after the 10th day of September, 2004.(Emphasis supplied) In the present case, it is clause (ii) which is of relevance. Hence, in order to enable a manufacturer to avail of Cenvat credit, the requirement is that the duty of Excise ought to have been paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of a final product. The expression input service is defined in Rule 2(l) as follows :- (l) Input service means any service, - (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is used by the manufacturer even indirectly, and in or in relation to the manufacture of a final product. Where the legislature or its delegate uses the expression in or in relation to its object and purpose is to widen the scope and purview of the entitlement. When the words directly or indirectly and in or in relation to the manufacture of final products are used in conjunction that is indicative of the comprehensive sweep and ambit of the statutory provision. Rule 6(1) stipulates that no Cenvat credit shall be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, save in the circumstances which are mentioned in Rule 6(2). Rule 6(2) deals with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods or any provision of exempted services. 8. As regards the Cenvat Credit of the central excise duty paid on pipes, I find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Belgaum Vs. Bellary Steel and Alloys Ltd - 2008 (226) ELT 280 (Tri. - Bang.) was relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra). The ratio which has been laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra) has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra). Their Lordships in the said judgment has held as under: 3. An identical issue came up for consideration before the CEGAT, in J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra) cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary. 6. We, therefore, allow this appeal and hold that Modvat credit is available to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
