Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 15 - CESTAT CHENNAICENVAT credit - commercial construction services used for the construction of annealing sheds, pickling sheds, EB room, wire drawing room, compound wall, rest room, toilet, security room, overhead tank, road laying etc - whether the allegation that assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule 2 (l) and Rule 3 of CCR 2004 by availing credit on ineligible input services as the said services have not been used for providing any output service as well as the said services are not used by the respondents directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and for clearances of final products, is justified? Held that: - the processing of goods was in relation to manufacture implies not only production but the various stages through which the raw material is subjected to change by different operations. It is the cumulative effect of the various processes through which the raw material is subjected, the manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would be a process in relation to the manufacture. Whether any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods but for that, process, manufacture or processing of goods would be impossible or commercially inexpedient, that process is the one in relation to the manufacture. There is no warrant for limiting the meaning of expression “in the manufacture of goods’ through the process of production of goods. I find that the construction of compound wall, rest room, toilet, security room, overhead tank, road laying activity project work or CC work, painting work, annealing sheds, pickling sheds, EB room, wire drawing room are all necessary to run the factory or not depends on the activity undertaken by the manufacture or as per the requirement of their manufacturing activity. In this case, from the facts, it emerges that all the constructions are integral part of the factory and hence credit taken over the input services by the respondents is eligible. I also find that in view of the clarification issued by the Board’s circular dt. 29.4.2011 cited (supra) and in view of the fact that the services have been rendered and billed prior to 1.4.2011 for which payment has also been paid on 1.12.2007 i.e. prior to 1.4.2011. Hence in this view of the matter also, the input service tax credit is eligible as clarified by the above mentioned Board’s circular. CENVAT credit allowed - appeal disposed off - decided against Revenue.
|