TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfy the legal requirements embodied in the main part of the definition - It also took the view that Cenvat credit on any taxable service would not be allowed by mere reason of the fact that the cost of the service was included in the assessable value of the final product of the manufacturer who claimed the Cenvat credit - - Therefore, the appellant cannot claim Cenvat credit on maintenance and repairs service on the ground that the cost of the service was included in the assessable value of the pumps. Demand of duty - The show-cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation by alleging that the appellant suppressed the factum of availment of Cenvat credit on maintenance and repairs service with intent to evade paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the above duty for the period from August 2005 to November 2006 from the appellant by way of denial of Cenvat credits totalling to the aforesaid amount, on certain taxable services which were considered by the appellant to be input services within the scope of the definition of input service given under rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The demand is in adjudication of a show-cause notice which was issued on 18-9-2008 which invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground that the appellant suppressed the material fact with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant has contested the demand both on the merits and on the ground of limitation. 2. The Cenvat credits denied by the Commissioner were availed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. - CESTAT). The learned Counsel has also claimed support from a very recent decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) viz. Judgment, dated 25-10-2010, in CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244. It is submitted that the maintenance and repairs service in question would squarely meet the parameters laid down by the Hon ble High Court for a taxable service to qualify as input service under Rule 2(l) ibid. It is submitted that the pumps were sold to the Oil Marketing Companies on the basis of purchase orders placed by the latter on the appellant. The purchase order stipulated inter alia that it would be the obligation of the seller to repair the pumps free of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods. According to him, the benefit is admissible only if an integral connection could be shown between the service and the business of manufacturing pumps. This argument is based on the premise that every service mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service should meet the essential conditions laid down in the main part of the definition. In this connection, the learned SDR has referred to para 14 of the Hon ble Supreme Court s Judgment in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE 2009 (240) ELT 641. It is submitted that the mere fact that the cost of the service was included in the assessable value of the final product would not entitle the manufacturer to take credit of the service tax paid on the service. In this contex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Bench relied on Maruti Suzuki (P.) Ltd. (supra) to hold that any service mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service should satisfy the legal requirements embodied in the main part of the definition. It also took the view that Cenvat credit on any taxable service would not be allowed by mere reason of the fact that the cost of the service was included in the assessable value of the final product of the manufacturer who claimed the Cenvat credit. This view was taken by this Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) also. This view is based on para 14 of the Supreme Court s decision in Maruti Suzuki (P.) Ltd. case (supra). Therefore, prima facie, the appellant cannot claim Cenvat credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit on all input services was clearly disclosed in the periodical returns filed by the appellant. The learned Counsel has, however, fairly conceded that the factum of availment of Cenvat credit on maintenance and repairs service was not specifically mentioned in the returns. Therefore, prima facie, the demand of duty is not time-barred. 7. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the quantification of duty is incorrect. He submits that the Commissioner has demanded duty equivalent to Cenvat credit availed on numerous services and that approximately 56 per cent of the amount only will take care of maintenance and repairs service. In the memo of appeal, the appellant has quantified this amount (Rs. 61 ,56,300) being 56 per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
