Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (1) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that it is post removal/post manufacturing activity, not justified – however, in case of “outward transport services”, it is to be examined in connection with “place of removal” - E/966-968, 889-891 and 1548/2008 - A/216-222/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 16-1-2009 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - During the period from 30-12-02 to 7-6-05 the appellants had availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid by them on erection and commissioning services received by them from a service provider on account of erection, commissioning of the machines at the premises of the buyers of said machines. The issue involved is common in respect of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service provider assembled subcomponents into parts and thereafter at the buyer's premises these parts were erected has been simply rejected. It is his submission that they have documentary evidence to show that the service providers had provided service both in the manufacturer's premises as well as the buyer's premises. He also submits that a detailed statement showing the details of machines sold and actual price etc. has been submitted in support on their contention that the value of the machines includes cost of erection and commissioning. He also took me through one sample contract regarding sales to show that erection and commissioning cost were included. In sales contract No. 22 dated 28-6-04, the price has been shown as ex-works, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He also submits that the manufacture was completed in the premises of the manufacturer and duty has been discharged at the time of removal of the goods. Therefore subsequent activities are only posts manufacture and post removal activities and therefore credit has been rightly denied by the Commissioner (Appeals). No manufacturing activity takes place in the premises of the buyer and whatever activities that take place in the buyer's premises, appellants cannot take credit. Just because duty has been paid including the value, it does not mean that Cenvat credit of service tax is admissible. 4. I have considered the submissions heard by both the sides and gone through the records. 4.1 In this case erection and commissioning charges h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rection and commissioning services provided also can be said to be in relation to the manufacture, since the process in this case is complete only after the erection and commissioning takes place. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate, Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyer's premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted. What has to be examined is whether the service provided is in or in relation to manufacture. 4.2 Another point that has been relied upon by the revenue is that service tax credit is not adm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o be rejected. 4.4 Similarly it is also not correct to say that the appellant is not the service provider. As per the contract the responsibility for providing erection and commissioning is with the appellant and has already mentioned earlier even if we treat erection and commissioning activity as a separate service activity, the service provider would be the appellant and the receiver would be the buyer. The sub contractor is actually working under the manufacturer and therefore he is a provider of service to the appellants. 5. In view of the above discussions I find that appellants are eligible for the Cenvat credit availed by them and accordingly they succeed on merit. Since the appellants succeed on merit, the department's appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates