TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UDICIAL MEMBER Shri Rajesh Kumar, CA, HIRAGANGE ASSOCIATES, For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 06/07/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2 Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of corrugated boxes and corrugated rolls falling under chapter sub-heading 4819 and 4808 of CETA, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit on capital goods, inputs and input services. During the course of audit, the records of the appellant revealed that during the period Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal products. He further submitted that the definition also covers activities related to business. He also submitted that the service tax was paid on construction service for setting up of factory building which is pre-requisite for manufacture of final products. He also submitted that the definition of input service was amended only w.e.f. 01/04/201 1 to exclude the credit in respect of setting up of factory. But in the present case, the period is much before the said amendment and hence the credit cannot be denied, He also submitted. that the circular No.98/1/2008-ST dt. 04/01/2008 relied on in the impugned order is contrary to the definition of input service. It is further submitted that the invoice dt. 26/03/2010, which is on record, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of setting up of a factory building. I also find in the present case during the relevant time, the setting up and modernization of the factory building was included in the definition of input service. Moreover this issue has been settled in favour of the assessee by the following decisions: - i. AryaVaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2012-TIOL1685-CESTAT-BANG] ii. Navaratna S.G. Highway Prop. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2012(28) STR 166 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. CCE vs. SaiSahmita Storages (P) Ltd. [2011 (270) ELT 33(AP)] Therefore by following the above said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order denying the CENVAT credit of construction service of factory building during the relevant time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
