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

2021 (11) TMI 1127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he amended definition from 1.4.2011. Accordingly, the department had entertained a belief that in view of deletion of such phrase in the definition clause, the appellant should not be eligible for the benefit of consideration of the disputed services as input service. On perusal of the definition of input service contained in the CENVAT statute, it transpires that the services used either directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product should be considered as input service. In this case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on the disputed services for setting up of new Technology Centre and that by utilising such facility, it had provided the output services defined under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant is also registered as a recipient service for payment of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. During the course of audit of records for the disputed period, the department had observed that the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on setting up of the business premise should not be considered as input service after the period 1.4.2011. It has specifically been contended by the department that vide Notification No.3/2011 C Ex. (N.T) dated 1.3.2011 (effective from 1.4.2011), the definition of input service has been amended by deleting the term setting up from the inclusive portion contained in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, it was concluded by the audit wing that the assesse is not eligible .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati: 2021 (7) TMI 1094 (CESTAT-Hyderabad) and Kellogs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati GAST: 2020 (7) TMI 414(CESTAT-Hyderabad). 3. On the other hand, Shri Rama Holla, learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since the phrase setting up was specifically deleted in the inclusive part of the definition of input service with effect from 1.4.2011, the appellant should not be eligible for the benefit of CENVAT credit and accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned order insofar as it has confirmed the adjudged demands on the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 5. The issue i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s were ultimately meant for accomplishing the objective of providing the output service, it cannot be said that since, the phrase setting up was specifically excluded in the inclusive part of definition of input service, the benefit of CENVAT credit should not be available. Even though, such phrase was deleted in the inclusive part of the definition of input service with effect from 1.4.2011, but the main part of such definition clause has considered within its ambit such phrase as input service for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the disputed services. Thus, we are of the considered view that denial of CENVAT benefit on the disputed services cannot be sustained. We find that on an identical situation, thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition makes no difference. Once it is covered in the main part of the definition of input service, unless it is specifically excluded under the exclusion part of the definition, the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on the input services used. This Bench has already taken this view in Kellogs. Similar views have been taken by the other Benches in the other cases mentioned above. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merits in the impugned order insofar as it has denied the CENVAT benefit and confirmed the adjudged demands on the appellant. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. (Order pronounced in .....

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