Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 1044

t Laying Work, Floor Tilling Work, etc. - scope of exclusion clause - HELD THAT:- The impugned order denying the CENVAT credit mainly relying upon the exclusion clause as provided in Rule 2(l) is not sustainable in law because the input service involved in the present case relates to repair and renovation of the premises of the appellant who is the service provider. Further, the CENVAT credit on repair or renovation is included in the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) - Further, the Board vide its circular dated 29.4.2011 has also clarified the issue that credit on input services used for repair or renovation of a factory or office is allowed. The modernization, renovation or repair of the premises of the service provider .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ced that the appellant was discharging Service Tax on Cargo Handling Services, Storage and Warehouse Service and Airport Services‟ under the Head Airport Services by Airport Authority on Civil Work, Cement Laying Work, Floor Tilling Work, etc., on the bills of various service providers like M/s. S. M. Technologies, G. R. Solution, Sri Matalingeshwara Enterprises, F.N. Interiors, Bangalore Fast Services, Gandhi Automations Pvt. Ltd., etc. The department entertained a view that the appellant has availed CENVAT credit on input services which have been specifically excluded in the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On these allegations, a show-cause notice dated 4.1.2016 was issued to the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ening service within the factory premises. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by wrongly interpreting the definition of input service and the exclusion clause in the input service definition. He further submitted that by the impugned order, the CENVAT credit has been denied only on the ground that the services carried out by the appellant are specifically excluded from the definition of input service w.e.f 1.4.2011 when the definition of input service was amended. He further submitted that the exclusion which is specified under Rule 2(l) .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

further submitted that once the Department has clarified that the CENVAT credit used for repair and renovation of a factory or an office is allowed then the Department cannot take a stand contrary to the clarification issued by the Board and also to the statutory provision. He further submitted that the case laws relied upon by the Department is not applicable in the present situation because the services involved in those case laws were specifically excluded whereas the input service involved in the present case are covered by the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l). In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (45) STR 92 wherein it was .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

nications Bozel Ltd.: 2018 (3) TMI 995 CCE vs. Nihilent Technologies Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 (8) TMI 1049 Piramal Enterprise Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (1) TMI 460 Godawari Power Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (12) TMI 894 4.2 He also submitted that the input service relating to servicing of motor vehicle would not fall under the exclusion clause provided under Rule 2(l)(B) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore, the denial of credit is without jurisdiction. He also placed on record, the agreement between the appellant and the Bangalore International Airport Ltd. from whom the appellant have taken the premises on rent. The said agreement also provides that the appellant can carry out repairs and expansion and alteration as part of their obligation of the agreement .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||