9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligible services for the purpose of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 04.04.2016 allowed further availment of credit amount of Rs. 41,828/- in respect of certain input services and reducing penalty under Rule 15 (1) of the Rules to Rs. 2000/- however, denied remaining disputed credits amounting to Rs. 1,16,382/-. Aggrieved, appellant is before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri M. Kannan submitted that the remaining disputes on eligibility of input service credit pertain to the following input services availed by the appellant : (a) Construction of Overhead tank Ld. Counsel submits that this is a factory related expenditure and the ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the scope of rule 2(l), credit cannot be disallowed for Service Ta relating to factory (civil structure). (g) Transport & Loading Charges Ld. Counsel submits that this expenditure is incurred with reference to transport and trading of raw material, semi-processed goods and as well as final products. Since the services are in connection with excisable goods and is incurred in the course of manufacture of excisable goods, credit cannot be disallowed. (h) Labour charges for fabrication and erection of DSL system Ld. Counsel submits that this is for manufacturing purposes. Hence credit availed for Service Tax payment for the said activity will be eligible for credit. (i) Professional services charges rendered regarding tax benefit for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be eligible for Service Tax payment in this regard. 3. Ld. Advocate submitted that all these services are very much required by appellant in furtherance of the business and industrial activity and hence credit should not be denied. 4. On the other hand, Ld.A.R Shri S. Govindarajan, AC vehemently opposed the appeal stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) has analyzed the issue on hand in great detail and reasoned finding vis-a-vis eligibility or otherwise of the impugned input services. 5. Heard both sides and gone through the facts of the case. 6. All the disputed input service credit pertain to the period after 1.4.2011 from which date definition of "input services" on the Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004 stood amended. As per Rule 2(l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of these services has no merit and is therefore rejected. 8. Coming to the services availed on transport and loading charges i.e.Sl. No. (g) of the aforesaid list, I find that these services relate not only to transportation and loading charges incurred with respect to raw material but also semi-processed as well as final products. There is no individual break up of the categories available and accordingly only for the limited purpose of determining the eligibility of each of the individual services, and also amounts involved in each case, the matter is required to be remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. It is clarified that such de novo consideration will only to with respect to verifying individual break up of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
