9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; 2. The facts of the case in brief are that LGB, manufacturers of automotive and industrial chains and its parts based in Coimbatore set up windmills at Nagercoil and Palladam. The power generated by the windmills is transferred to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) grid, which the assessee received for use in its manufacturing facility. LGB availed credit of service tax paid on account of erection/commissioning of windmill projects, security charges, annual maintenance contract charges etc. paid in respect of the windmills. On the basis that that there was no nexus between the windmills and the production process in the factory two Show Cause Notices were issued to recover credit of service tax paid in respect of erection and maintenance of the windmills and taken by the appellants. Notices also alleged LGB availing credit pertaining to its sister units as well as taking double credit for the same payment. The original authority demanded credit of service tax availed by LGB along with interest and imposed penalties on them in adjudication of the allegations in the notices. In the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed orders of the original authority. In the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That electricity was not excisable was not relevant for the issue on hand. It was settled that input/input services used in power plant was eligible if the final products were liable to duty. The appellants relied on the following case law:- (i) Final Order No. A/872/WZB/AHD dt. 25-4-08 [2009 (13) S.T.R. 167 (Tri.-Ahmd.) = 2009 (234) E.L.T. 367 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] (ii) Stay Order No. 775/08-Ex dated 7-8-08 (iii) Final Order No. A/871/WZB/AHD/08 dt. 25-4-08 (iv) Stay Order No. 605/08-Ex dated 10-6-08 [2008 (12) S.T.R. 337 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. 3. It was also submitted that the credit alleged to have been taken in respect of service tax paid by the appellants' sister units had already been reversed. The same could not be demanded again. Though the appellate authority recorded the appellants' claim in this regard, he did not verify the claim; instead he affirmed the demand. The notices demanded erroneously credit of service tax availed, twice. This accounted for a demand of Rs. 1,57,664/-. 4. The alleged wrong availment of credit had taken place owing to an interpretation different from that held by the department as regards the appellants' eligibility to the same. Therefore pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Input service included any service used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and clearance of the final product from the place of removal and included among others, services used in activities relating to business. In CCE, Hyderabad v. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (11) S.T.R. 266 (Tribunal) = 2008-TIOL-629-CESTAT-BANG], the respondent was an EOU providing output service. Rejecting the revenue's argument that credit was not admissible to input services for want of nexus with output service, the Tribunal had held that scope of the input service was wide and included in that case the following services:- (i) Equipment hiring charges (ii) Professional Consultation Service (iii) Recruitment Services (iv) Security Services (v) Telephone Services (vi) Transport Services (vii) Training Services (viii) Facility Operation Service (ix) Courier Services (x) Other input services like advertisement service, recruitment service and security service. It was held that credit was admissible on all the above input services and where the credit had not been utilized the respondents were entitled to refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power plant as captive power plant and as part of the manufacturing unit, prima facie, there was no justification to deny service tax credit of the tax on insurance premium paid on captive power generation plant. In Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bhavnagar [2006 (4) S.T.R. 79 (Tri.- Mum.)], the Tribunal held that CCR did not stipulate that input service had to be received in the factory. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 4 of CCR, merely provided that CENVAT credit in respect of input service shall be allowed on or after the date on which payment was made for the value of input service and the service tax paid or payable was included in the invoices, bills and challans. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid on mobile phones could not be denied to eligible providers of output services and manufacturers. In Force Motors Limited v. CCE, Pune [2009 (13) S.T.R. 692 (Tri.-Mumbai) = 2008-TIOL-1199-CESTAT- MUM], it was held that the appellants therein were eligible for credit of service tax paid to Air Port Authority of India in respect of the aircraft which was owned and operated by the appellants for carrying on business as a manufacturer. The Tribunal had found that there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
