TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct including the services used in relation to setting up of the plant. - Held that:- It is not in dispute that M/s. Tata Motors received the impugned services for the aforesaid purpose. - during the relevant period, the CENVAT Credit Rules did not preclude a manufacturer to take the credit at a later date in respect of the impugned services already received by them. Revenue s sole ground for denying the credit is that the appellant could not have utilized the impugned services for manufacture of the final product (as they dismantled their plant at Singur). We are of the opinion that as the input services were received by M/s. Tata Motors at Singur for manufacture of the final products, the said unit is eligible to take credit in terms of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... line, other articles of iron and steel and structures and super structures for Mining etc. falling under Chapter Heading 72 and 73 treating the said items as capital goods. They further took the credit of ₹ 29,00,15,241.49 against the input service distributors (ISD) invoices dated 15/09/2009 and 15/05/2010. 2.3 A show cause notice dated 3/12/2010 was issued to the appellant i.e. M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Singur alleging that they had irregularly taken the credit on various items of Chapter 72 and 73 in the guise of capital goods.It is alleged that the impugned items were the structural materials of iron and steel and used for construction of flooring (mezzanine)structures in their work shop. They being embedded to earth are in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that there is no restriction in Rule 2(k) for the availment of credit of duty paid goods for the manufacture of capital goods. He, further submitted that the entire demand is time barred, in as much as during the relevant period there was conflicting views of the various Tribunal and the eligibility of credit or other wise has been decided only by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Globals case which has been relied upon in the impugned order. 3.2 As regards irregular availment of credit of Service Tax on various services used in Singur, it is the contention that the said credit was taken against the two ISD invoices dated 15/09/2009 and 15/5/2010.But, the impugned services were received and consumed prior to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit taken on input services he submitted that in the impugned proceedings, the authenticity of the invoices has not been called into question, nor has any element of credit constituting the ISD invoice has been disputed. However, the adjudicating officer in para 4.12 of the order observed that the appellant having already informed before taking credit that they were going to wind up their Singur factory, there would be no scope for them to show the use of credit. Accordingly, he has denied the credit. The Ld. Special Counsel reiterated the observation/reasoning of the adjudicating authority in this regard. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6.1 We find that according to appellant various items of iron steel were used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal; Rule 3. CENVAT Credit (1) A manufacture or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the CENVAT credit) of - - (ix) The service tax leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act paid on (i) - (ii) any input service received by the manufacturer of final product or by the provider of output service on or after the 10th day of September, 2004. 6.3 It is evident from the above provisions that a manufacturer of the final product is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 2 (l) of the said Rules . 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that M/s. Tata Motors, Singur has taken the CENVAT Credit correctly on the input services. We, however, remit back the case to the Ld. Commissioner for deciding the case afresh on eligibility of the credit taken on various items of iron and steel products on the basis of evidences on record and that would be produced by the Appellant during the course of de novo proceeding. He is directed to examine the issue of limitation as well. It is needless to mention that reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the appellant before deciding the case. 8. Consequently, the appeal is disposed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
