Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 451 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Technical Testing and Analysis - Consulting Engineering - period 01/06/2008 to 31/01/2010 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is clear that factually the auditor as well as the authorities below started the entire matter on a wrong premise and mis-guided themselves by this fact that the Appellant availed the services in issue for the purpose of establishing new plant which was dropped later on. Whereas the correct fact is that it was used for new mines at the existing plant at Rabariyawas only. Since, the Appellants are into the business of manufacturing Cement, therefore lime stone is mandatory for that business and to check the quality of lime stone availment of input services like Technical Testing and Analysis as well as Consulting Engineer Services are must. The definition of “input service” is very wide and covers not only services, which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but also includes various services used in relation to the business of manufacture of final products, whether, prior to the manufacture of final products or after the manufacture of final products. To put it differently, the definition of input service is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The record that the demand is for the period from June, 2008 to 31/01/2010, whereas the show cause notice was issued only on 27/01/2011, i.e. after almost beyond one year, by invoking the extended period on the ground of willful suppression on the part of the Appellant. Whereas from the records, there is nothing found which can substantiate the allegation of the department about wilful suppression. Learned Counsel have taken me through various invoices during the period in issue, which have been placed on record. From the perusal of the said invoices also it is clear that the services were availed for the existing plant at Rajariyawas and not for any new or proposed plant. Therefore, Revenue is not justified in denying the benefit of Credit to the Appellant. The issue involved herein is answered in favour of the Appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|