Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 239 - AT - Service TaxRecovery of CENVAT Credit wrongly availed alongwith interest and penalty - input service or not - dredging service - case of Revenue is that the dredging service is not required by the Appellant for providing the output service and consequently, there was no direct nexus between the dredging service and output port services. HELD THAT:- In case of Adani Port & SEZ Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1060 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], it was held that “any” service used by a service provider “for providing” Port Service in any manner, is eligible for credit. The definition of input service by way of “means” and “includes” also amplify the scope of the same. Further, the definition also mentions certain specific services. The definition also includes services used in relation to “activities relating to business”. These further enlarge the scope of the input services. The net result of such a wide definition as rightly held by the High Courts and Tribunal, is that any input service which has any nexus or is in relation to the output services in any manner whatsoever, or is in relation to the activities relating to business would be eligible for credit. Therefore, the appellants would be eligible to take credit on the input services where they are able to satisfy the above criteria. In case of Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. [2021 (9) TMI 816 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], it was held that in the present case also as regard the service provision of dredging service there is a direct contract between the service provider viz M/s. Van Oard Dredging and Marine Contractor and M/s. Van Oard India Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant. The said service providers rendered the service to the appellant only and not to the Gujarat Maritime Board. Therefore, the appellant being the sole recipient of the service entitled for the Cenvat credit. It also not disputed that the entire service charges along with service tax there on for dredging of navigation channel was paid by the appellant to the aforesaid contractors who carried out the dredging services. In this undisputed fact the appellant is the service recipient for dredging service which is undisputedly used for providing Port Services and cargo handling services, hence, the appellant is entitled for taking Cenvat credit on dredging services. From the above decisions, it is evident that the dredging services have been held as input service for providing the output port services. It has been held in the case of Essar that it is the person namely the appellant who has received the said services to provide the output service to his clients and not the Government under whose license/ lease agreement the service provider is from the port area. Since both the issues on which the credit has been sought to be denied have been decided in the favour of the appellant by the CESTAT we do not find any merits in the impugned order denying the credit. Appeal allowed.
|