9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aswati Sugar Mills [ 2011 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] , cited by Learned Authorised Representative, would not apply to the facts relating to availment of CENVAT credit. Cenvat Credit on Dumpers used to provide services as annual maintenance contract for windmills - HELD THAT:- The original authority was not correct in determining the ineligibility for CENVAT credit on dumpers and supplies relating to. The sole ground for denial of credit on annual maintenance contract service is that these are not used directly in manufacture of excisable goods and that windmills themselves are not finished products liable to duties of central excise. There are no merit in the appeal of Revenue which is dismissed. - MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri P K Acharya, Superintendent (AR) for the appellant Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the respondent ORDER This appeal of Revenue, against order [order-in-appeal no. 32/BPS/LTU/2013 dated 15th March 2013] of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai II, pertains to disallowance of CENVAT credit of ₹56,05,486 and the order for recovery of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into that category or neither did service availed in relation to such in terms of rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II v. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd [2019 (365) ELT 14 (Bom.)] and of the Tribunal in Ispat Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2006 (195) ELT 164 (Tri.-Mumbai)] which found approval of the Hon'ble High Court Bombay vide order dated 19th July 2017 disposing off appeal [central excise appeal no. 187 of 2006] contending that structures used for capital goods are entitled for the benefit of CENVAT credit. It was also contended that the sole ground for appeal of Revenue is that the amendment in rule 2(k) by insertion of Explanation 2 below, with effect from 7th July 2009, was to be applied prospectively with credit having been availed prior to such date. It is also contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh had, in Vandana Global Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Raipur [2018 (16) ELT 462 (Chhattisgarh.)], discarded the finding of the Tribunal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in re Vandana Global Ltd, confirming the retrospective application of the amendment, has since been discarded by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, the first appellate authority was correct in determining the eligibility for CENVAT credit on products of iron and steel. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Saraswati Sugar Mills, cited by Learned Authorised Representative, would not apply to the facts relating to availment of CENVAT credit. Furthermore, insofar as the issue relating to dumpers and supplies is concerned the contention of Revenue is that these become eligible only with a specific inclusion with effect from 28th June 2012. Per contra we find that in re Mangalam Cements Ltd, in an identical issue before the Tribunal, it was held that 5. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellant urges that the issue is no longer res-integra and Division Bench of this Tribunal in M/s SD Bansal Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2017 TIOL 784 CESTAT DEL. have held in the said case that the appellant has used dumpers/tippers for movement of raw materials such as ingots ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o CENVAT credit. Rule does not say that input service received by a manufacturer must be received at the factory premises. The judgments referred to above, also interpret the word input service in similar fashion. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [cited supra], the Division Bench of this Court held that the definition of input service is very wide and covers not only services which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to manufacture of final product but also includes various services used in relation to business of manufacture of final product. The expression activities in relation to business is also discussed in this judgment by referring to judgment of Apex Court. In the case of Deepak Fertilizers Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.Ex. Belapur [cited supra] the Division Bench held as under : The definition of the expression input service covers any services used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The words directly or indirectly and in or in relation to are words of width and amplitude. The subordinate legislation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
