9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. Determination of this claim is crucial as it has a bearing on the process by which credit of input service could be distributed. Only then would it be possible to ascertain if the failure to obtain registration as input service distributor did impact distribution of credit. The impugned order is set aside to ascertain the correctness of the claim that bills were raised on a department of the transformer division and, if not, to determine the correctness of the contention that procedural irregularity would not stand in the way of taking the credit entirely as the rule, then in existence, allowed. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) And HON BLE MR AJAY SHARMA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Sachin Chitnis , Advocate for the appellant Shri Amredndra Kumar Jha , Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER : C J MATHEW This appeal of M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd challenges the recovery of credit of ₹ 58,35,374 taken on procurement of garden maintenance service , canteen service , housekeeping service and fire protection service under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 between March 2008 and November 2012 by recourse to section 11A of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir factory premises in an eco-friendly, manner, certainly, the tax paid on such services would form part of the costs of the final products. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the service tax paid in all these cases would fall within the input services and the assessee is entitled to the benefit thereof. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is dismissed. of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom)] holding that 27. The definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules (insofar as it relates to the manufacture of final product is concerned), consists of three categories of services. The first category, covers services which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The second category, covers the services which are used for clearance of the final products up to the place of removal. The third category, includes services nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition of input service postulates activities which are integrally connected with the business of the assessee. If the activity is not integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of final product, the service would not qualify to be a input service under Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules. xxxxxx 31. In our opinion, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) in the context of the definition of input in Rule 2(k) of 2004 Rules would equally apply while interpreting the expression activities relating to business in Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules. No doubt that the inclusive part of the definition of input is restricted to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, whereas the inclusive part of the definition of input service extends to services used prior to/during the course of/after the manufacture of the final products. The fact that the definition of input service is wider than the definition of input would make no difference in applying the ratio laid down in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) while interpreting the scope of input service . Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to another entity of the appellant-company and that the services having been availed in common with the other registered assessees of the appellant-company which was not proper except through the mechanism of input service distributor under rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 thus 11. It is seen that the two main factors in the litigation are a. identity of the divisions housed at the Kanjur Marg complex b. procedure followed to distribute the credit i. Regarding identity of the divisions, it was confirmed from the jurisdictional range office that the said divisions were separate Central Excise entities. The divisions mentioned in the SCN hold different Central Excise registration numbers. This would mean that for Central Excise purposes, these divisions are technically different Central Excise assessees, irrespective of the fact whether the divisions are located in the same complex/territory or even whether they are included in the single balance sheet / income tax returns with the income tax authorities. ii. In view of the above circumstances that establishes the divisions to be separate Central Excise entities i.e. registered assessees with different Central Excise registrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
