TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition of ‘used in factory’ gets satisfied and the Cenvat Credit is admissible - the railway track laid by the Appellant (which connects the railway siding outside the factory with the siding inside the factory) shall have to be treated to have satisfied the condition of ‘used in the factory’. The issue about works contract services availed for laying down the Railway line is also no more res-integra in view of the judgement in the case of The India Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-I [2018 (6) TMI 581 - CESTAT CHENNAI], wherein it was held that The laying of railway tracks does not fit into sub-clause (a) or (b) of exclusion Part (A) in the definition of input service. Thus the disallowance of credit, alleging that these services are exclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Railway track as well as the Service Tax paid for the services provided by the service provider which has been consumed by the appellant. 3. We have heard ld. Advocate and ld. DR and perused the appeal record. 4. After going through the record, we are of the opinion: The definition of capital goods as well as inputs mandate the usage of goods within the factory. It has been held in a catena of judgement that where pipelines, rope-ways and other material handling equipment and their parts are partially located within factory and partially outside, then the portion which is outside the factory has to be treated as an extension of the portion which is inside the factory. Accordingly, the condition of used in factory gets satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded under the sub-clause (A). Inasmuch as the services of laying of railway line is neither in relation to construction of building or a civil structure nor in relation to laying of foundation or making structures for support of capital goods. On the contrary, the present services are for laying of railway tracks, which per se are capital goods, thus, the present services are in relation to the installation of capital goods only. Thus, the exclusion under sub-clause (A) of the Rule 2 (l) does not apply to the instant case. Thus, the Appellant has correctly availed the Cenvat Credit on the works contract services for laying of railway lines. 6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. [Dictated and pronounced in the open Court] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
