Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 42 - AT - Central ExciseWorks contract services received after 01.04.2011 - Service tax credit denied - period Jan 2013 to March 2013 - services used for setting up of factory after 01.04.2011, which is after amendment of CCR 2004 - Held that:- Post 01.04.2011 the services were excluded from the purview of input services in terms of Rule 2(l) (ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules - credit rightly denied. GTA service - Input service credit - period June 2011 to March 2012 - denial on the ground that Sample invoices perused by the Commissioner (A) have not indicated that the applicant was under obligation to deliver the goods at customers place - Held that:- These services are for the period June, 2011 to March, 2012 i.e. post 01.04.2008 - credit denied following the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein, it was held that outward transportation of goods from place of removal to buyer’s premises post 01.04.2008 is ineligible for availment of CENVAT credit - credit denied. CENVAT credit - inputs - washer blanks, foundation bolts and nuts - period September 2010 to April 2011 - appellant have admitted that they were used for foundation work of storage tank, machinery and other civil work - Held that:- The CENVAT credit availed on foundation bolts, washer blanks, etc., are ineligible as they are for the purpose of structural construction on shed/ building etc., however, CENVAT credit of the Central Excise duty paid on dust collection bags made from 100% Polyester Nonwoven Needle felt supplied by Genuine Filters & Fabrics are to be held has eligible for availment of CENVAT credit - credit allowed in part. CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - renting of immovable property service - period January, 2013 to August, 2013 - credit denied as the invoices were raised on their unit in sedam, Karnataka and not on the address of the appellant. Invoices didn’t have all the particulars as required under CCR 2004 - Held that:- The definition of the inputs and input services indicates that there should be directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. In the case in hand, appellants were manufacturing cement at their Bollaram unit; even though production at Bollaram factory was suspended they had continued to maintain the lease premises with them, in anticipation that the Bollaram unit will start manufacturing after labour trouble is sorted out - the findings of the lower authorities that production was not taking place at Bollaram unit, hence, the CENVAT credit needs to be denied is incorrect proposition - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - period January, 2013 - Liaison Services, labour charges for erection, laying of cables from Jayasudha Enterprises and Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services from Bureau of Indian Standards, invoices of which were raised in their Sedam unit in Karnataka - Held that:- These invoices were raised on their another unit, but the renewal was for various licences at Bollaram unit and the labour charges were paid for laying cables and various other activities in spite of the unit at Bollaram suspended - credit allowed. Penalty - Held that:- Penalty seems to be unwarranted as the most of CENVAT credit availed by the appellants are allowed and denied by the Bench on the question of interpretation of eligibility to avail credit and the appellant had informed the Revenue Authorities by filing the returns regularly. Appeal allowed in part.
|