9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the CBEC Circular dated 29.4.2011 - reliance placed in the case of KAMAL RUB PLAST INDUSTRIES P LTD. VERSUS CCE-DELHI-III [2016 (5) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Appeal allowed - decided n favor of appellant. - E/20121/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20281/2019 - Dated:- 21-3-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. Sudeshna. B, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o been raised before 1.4.2011, however, the credit was merely availed post 1.4.2011. She further submitted that services received before 1.4.2011, the provision of which have concluded before 1.4.2011 are eligible for credit in terms of definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as it stood prior to 1.4.2011. Since the date of completion of service is crucial to determine the eligibility of credit. She also referred to CBEC Circular No.943/04/2011 dated 29.4.2011 wherein it was clarified under Sl. No.12 of the Table that if the service is received prior to 1.4.2011, the credit shall be allowed in respect of such services even if the credit on such services are not allowed post 1.4.2011. For this submission, she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put service. This decision of the High Court was subsequently followed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: 2017 (49) STR 261 (P H). Further, she relied upon the decision in the case of CCE vs. India Cements Ltd: 2017 (3) GSTL 144 (Tri.-Hyd.) wherein it was held that almost all activities related to business of manufacture would be covered by the definition of input service during the period prior to 1.4.2011. Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered in the case of CCE, Chennai vs. Mirra Mirra Industries: 2017 (48) STR 91 (Tri.-Chen.) wherein the Tribunal has held that whether construction of compound wall, rest room, toilet, security room, overhead tank, road laying act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raymond Uco Denim Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 346 (Tri. - Mum.) ii. Transit House Ultratech Cement Ltd v. CCE, Jaipur 2017-TIOL-4477-CESTAT-DEL iii. Rain Water Harvesting Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. Of C. Ex., Bangalore 2013 (31) S.T.R. 499 (Tri. - Bang.) iv. Construction of transport building M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Commissioner Of Central Excise Delhi III 2017-TIOL-207-CESTAT-CHD Commissioner Of C. Ex., Chennai V. Mirra Mirra Industries 2017 (48) STR 91 (Tri-Chen) v. Earth Work for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th 2019-TIOL-646-CESTAT-BANG xiii. Scafolding painting works Mahle Engines Components India P. Ltd. v. Commr. Of C. Ex., Indore 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1150 (Tri. - Del.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the credit on construction of canteen building, transit house, civil work, rain water harvesting, construction of transport building pertaining to the period prior to 1.4.2011 are not related to manufacturing activity but only pertains to some facilitation and the appellant have failed to establish nexus between the input service and manufacture of the finished goods as required in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
