9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.1.2009 to 1.1.2010 to 1.7.2011 to Show cause notice(s) dated 03.02.2010 19.03.2010 13.05.2010 5.08.2010 18.10.2010 09.12.2010 05.08.2011 03.10.2011 01.12.2011 31.01.2011 30.07.2012 01.10.2012 23.01.2013 Order-in- Original dated 24.12.2010 12.9.2012 27.11.2013 Order-in-Appeal dated 26.09.2011 - - Demand(s) of service tax Rs. 14,08,132/- for the period 1.1.2009 to 28.2.2009 Rs. 49,05,262/- for the period 1.3.2009 to 30.4.2009 Rs. 33,61,991/- for the period 1.5.2009 to 30.6.2009 Rs. 35,03,727/- for the period 1.7.2009 to 30.9.2009 Rs. 38,41,363/- for the period 1.10.2009 to 31.12.2009 Rs. 74,00,619/- for the period 1.1.2010 to 30.6.2010 Rs. 1,13,18,628/- for the period 1.7.2010 to 31.8.2010 Rs. 73,19,665/- for the period 1.9.2010 to 31.10.2010 Rs. 35,20,718/- for the period 1.11.2010 to 31.12.2010 Rs. 1,41,16,487/- for the period 1.1.2011 to 30.6.2011 1. Rs. 47,25,329 for the period 1.7.2011 to 31.8.2011 2. Rs. 42,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various input services such as maintenance and repair services, manpower recruitment services, technical analysis and testing services, cleaning services, supply of tangible goods etc., received by them in respect of vessels - MBC's (mini bulk carriers) and barges for their maintenance, staffing, technical inspection etc. 2.5 Show cause notices as indicated in para 1 above were issued to the appellants seeking to deny the credit, stating that these services have not been used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal. As per the department, the services were received in relation to vessels, tugs and port and hence do not have any nexus with the manufacturing activity. 2.6 The show cause notices were adjudicated as indicated in para 1 above, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Vikram Ispat [2010 (19) STR 52 (T)]. 2.7 Aggrieved by the impugned orders referred to in para 1 above, the appellants have filed these appeals. 3.1 We have heard Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Sydney D'Silva, Additional Commissioner, Authorised Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeals and during the course of argument. 4.2 We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in appellants' own case as reported in 2016 (46) STR 863 (Tri.-Mumbai), where in para 4 the Tribunal has held as follows:- "4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the Service Tax credit in respect of shipping fees and services availed in respect of vessels and barges is covered by the order of Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide order dated 11-3- 2014 and 8-3-2013. In view of the above, credit of these services is available and is allowed." 4.3 In appellants' own case vide order No. A/235- 240/13/SMB/C-IV, S/291-296/13/SMB/C-IV & M/242- 245/13/SMB/C-IV dated 08.03.2013, credit in respect of tugs and barge services and repair and maintenance services have been held admissible stating as follows:- "6. Considering the fact that the issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that any service availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, in the process of manufacture or for conducting this business of manufacture of finished goods, the Cenvat credit on the input services cannot be denied, even if the said services are received at place other than factory premises. Even in the case of inputs, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. [2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.)], held as follows:- "5. Now at the outset it must be noted that Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit inter alia of Service Tax which is paid on (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of the final product; and (ii) any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product. The subordinate legislation in the present case makes a distinction between inputs or capital goods on the one hand and input services on the other. Clause (i) above provides that the Service Tax should be paid on any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of the final product. Such a restriction, however, is not imposed in regard to input services since the only stipulation in clause (ii) is that the input services should be received by the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
