Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 696 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - construction of landfill in setting up of Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility on Build, Own and Operate basis - denial on the ground that the same is a works contract service involving civil construction that was covered under the exclusion clause of the definition of ‘input services’ under Rule 2(l)(A)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Going by the language of para 3 of the show-cause notice one thing is clear that setting of landfill is a mandatory requirement of the guidelines set by the State Pollution Control Board and the said construction was made for storage and disposal of Hazardous Waste which can be equated with construction of immovable property but not other than plant and machinery as found in the definition of works contract services. Further, it is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion if the said setting up of a landfill is civil structure or not, in view of the fact that civil structure has to be a structure of a permanent nature and the life of landfill ends after the same gets fill up, as has been reflected in para 9 of the show-cause notice. Even by going through the definition contained in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 dealing with exclusion clause, service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction service including services listed under clause B of Section 67E of the Finance Act excluding all other specified services therein are only excluded from the definition of ‘inputs service’ and not the whole portion of work including raw material used etc. However, in the demand raised against the appellant, every expenditure concerning setting up of the landfill and tax paid there on was taken into consideration to deny the credits on the entire amount. Extended period for imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- The contradictory findings by two Commissioners on the same issue would demonstrably illustrate that issue involved in this litigation is interpretative in nature that would defeat invocation of extended period for imposition of penalty on the appellant. Moreover, the subsequent Commissioner, in the similar facts of the case and issue involved therein, had hold a finding that such landfill is not a ‘civil structure’. Having regard to the fact that only service portion of the civil structure is disallowed for CENVAT credit and the landfill setup had a very limited life span that help in storage and disposal of Hazardous Waste and setting up of such landfill is a mandatory requirement in waste management as per guidelines of the State Pollution Control Board, we have no hesitation to hold a finding that credit taken by the appellant in setting up of such landfills are admissible credits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|