Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1089 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of input service credit on erection and installation charges - Held that:- The fact that these charges have been borne by the appellant is not in dispute. Further the machine is inoperative in the absence of erection and installation and therefore, these have been borne by the appellant. In the light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that an assessee who is a manufacturer of excisable goods is entitled for input service credit of the services availed by him in the course of their business. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has availed the services of erection and installation of machinery is part of the business. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for input service credit. Whether the appellant is entitled to take the benefit of exemption Notification 22/03 in the absence of re-warehousing certificate - Held that:- admittedly, the appellant cleared the goods under CT-3 certificates and copy of the same was produced by him before the department at the time of clearance between 2007-08. Within 90 days, the appellant was required to file re-warehousing certificate which they failed to do so but no steps has been taken by the revenue to verify whether the re-warehousing certificate has been obtained or not to deny the benefit of the Notification 22/03. Further, the audit took place in 2010. At that time also, this fact came to the knowledge of the department. Thereafter, the show-cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation on 02.03.2012, and there is no allegation of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invocable. Accordingly demand under this head is barred by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|