Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (5) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... common issues were also involved, the Commissioner (Appeals) chose to consolidate the same and pass a common Order covering the entire period and the issues as well. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the same is also adopted here. 3. The common facts which are also not disputed by both the assessee as well as the Revenue are that the appellant is engaged in providing a host of taxable services and are registered with the erstwhile Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai; that they filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR' for short) read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 being the unutilized CENVAT Credit pertaining to various periods from April 2014 to March 2015, which are clearly given in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut service and the output. 6.2.1 It is the case of the assessee that the Construction Service was used towards modernization, renovation and repairs of its premises which was used for providing output services which, according to the Ld. Consultant, was very much covered under the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 6.2.2 There is also force in the contention of the appellant that the requirement of establishing nexus between input service and the output has been done away with by the Board itself vide D.O.F. No. 334/1/2012-TRU dated 16.03.2012. The above issue has been considered by this very Bench in the case of M/s. Mckinsey Global Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & C.Ex. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad-II Vs. M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. reported in 2013 (30) S.T.R. 3 (Guj.) to hold that Interior Decorator and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services were covered in the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' in relation to renovation or repairs of factory or office relating to it. I find that the Ld. Consultant is correct in his assertion that the same issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (supra) and that the above view of the Hon'ble High Court has also been adopted by other Benches of the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., LTU, Mumbai reported in 2016 (45) S.T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o modernization, renovation and repair of the factor would definitely fall within the meaning of input services even though the construction of a building or of a civil structure or part thereof is placed under the exclusion clause. The above has also been clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 943/04/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011 wherein the input service used in modernization, renovation or repair has been clarified to be eligible for credit. 8.2.3 This aspect has been considered in the cases relied on by the Ld. Consultant supra and in one of the cases and in M/s. Ion Exchange (I) Ltd. (supra), the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, it has held as under : "8. A plain reading of the said provisions makes it clear that service utilized in re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as per the law." 8.2.4 From the above, the issue on hand is settled and in the absence of any contrary orders or judgements, following the above views, I hold that the rejection by the authorities below even on this count cannot sustain, for which reason the impugned order is set aside. 9.1 With regard to Air Travel Services, the Revenue has again denied the refund on the ground that the appellant was unable to establish the nexus. 9.2 As noted by me in the earlier paragraphs of this order, the Board itself has clarified vide D.O.F. No. 334/1/2012-TRU dated 16.03.2012, which is binding on the authorities below and the authorities below having not followed, the impugned order cannot sustain. Hence, the same is set aside. 10.1 With regar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates