Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 11 - AT - Central ExciseWrongful availment of CENVAT Credit - input services - Erection and Commissioning of Spray Drying Plant - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The exclusion clause (A) in sub-clause (b) talks about laying of foundation or making of structures and does not specifically cover the services of Erection and Commissioning. It is a settled principal that exclusion clause has to be construed strictly and narrowly and therefore logically exclusion has to be expressed and not implied. It is not the case of the revenue that while rendering the services of erection and commissioning they have to lay the foundation or has to raise structures - the exclusion clause does not apply to service of erection and commissioning and hence it would fall under the main clause of input service since it is directly related to the manufacturing activity of the appellant. Secondly, the demand in the show cause notice on this account also fails as nothing has been substantiated and as noticed by the adjudicating authority that the show cause notice has been issued in a very casual manner. The appellant has referred to few decisions by the Tribunal to say that exclusion clause (A) in Rule 2(l) of CCR,2004 does not cover the service in the nature of "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service", THERMAX LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., VADODARA [2019 (2) TMI 1876 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], M/S ORIENT CEMENT LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER C. CE&ST, HYDERABAD-I [2017 (1) TMI 1124 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] - In HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., CHENNAI-I [2016 (10) TMI 1092 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the view taken was that when erection and commissioning of water treatment plant was essential, there should not be denial of cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of such service availed for recycling of the water for use in manufacture - The present case is squarely covered by the said observations and therefore the services of Erection of 2 TPH Detergent Spray Drying Plant received by the appellant are covered under the main clause of the definition of input service. Since the issue has been decided on merits in favour of the appellant, the issue of limitation does not survive and hence is not required to be considered any more. Appeal allowed.
|