TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e service was indeed received by the appellant and the same was used for their business purpose. The expenses of the service was also borne by the appellant which was not in dispute rather they have submitted an affidavit of the service provider that the entire service charge was paid by the appellant and no any amount was recovered from any other private jetty owner. It is immaterial that where is the location of the service was provided. It is important to see that irrespective of such services have been provided anywhere but it is for the purpose of the assessee and it is received by the assessee. If that test is qualified then it cannot be said that the service was not received by the assessee. Thus the appellant is entitled to Cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Expenses for the service borne by the appellant and services were availed for their own business purpose in order to smooth navigation of vessels, which was provided by jetty. Therefore, there is no dispute that service recipient is the appellant and they have paid the service charge. Therefore, the service clearly falls under the ambit of Input Service, as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Coca Cola India Pvt. Limited - 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom) (b) Ultratech Cement Limited - 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom) (c) Deepak Fertilizers Petrochemicals Corporation - 2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom) (d) Saursshtra Cement Limited 2018 (8) TMI 460 CESTAT Ahmedabad (d) Sanghi Industries Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided anywhere but it is for the purpose of the assessee and it is received by the assessee. If that test is qualified then it cannot be said that the service was not received by the assessee. Accordingly, as discussed the above in the given facts, I am clear in my mind that appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit. Identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Sanghi Industries Limited (supra) wherein the Division bench of this Tribunal has taken a view as under:- 6.6 In respect of dredging services we find that the same was in respect of jetty in the factory premises and is used for transportation as well as import and export of goods. Since the services are related with the business of the company, the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge of Dredging Service is borne by the appellant only, which stands absorbed in the overall cost of manufacturing of cement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Dredging Service is used for the removal of final product from place of removal. Also as per Hon ble Bombay High Court judgement in the case of CC Ex., Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Limited - 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) it was held that if the cost of input service is borne by the assessee and the same stand absorbed in the cost of final product, such services are qualified as input services and accordingly the CEN VAT Credit is admissible. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court and the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that the Dredging Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
