TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not sustainable in law, and therefore, the same is set-aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Manmohan Mahipal, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar, Shri Aneesh Dewan, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 52,61,184/- alongwith interest and imposed equal penalty. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Catalytic Converter and door Lock Parts falling under chapter Sub Heading 8421390 and 83015000 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of internal audit conducted by the internal audit party of Central Excise Delhi III, Gurgaon for the period 2008-09 and 2009- 10, it was observed by the auditor that appellant has taken input servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE, Delhi-IV 2016 (41) STR 824 (Tri-Chan.) Honda Motorcycle Scooter (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III 2016 (45) STR 397 (Tri.-Chan.) Shakti Met Dor Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Hyderabad-IV 2017 (3) GSTL 152 (Tri.- Hyd.) Commissioner of Central GST, Gurgaon vs. DLF Ltd. 2023 (70) GSTL 237 (P h) Liugong Indian Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Indore 2015 (38) STR 96 (Tri.-Del.) Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai 2021 (52) GSTL 276 (Tri.- Chennai) Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II vs. Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 33 (A.P.) Commissioner of Customs, Delhi-iii vs. Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 351 (Tri-Del.) BASF India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise C.Tax, Mangalore 2021 (49) GSTL 8 (Tri.-Bang.) Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vs. Madras Cements Ltd. 2019 (370) ELT 568 (Tri.-Chennai) Commissioner of CGST Central Excise, Lucknow vs. DSCL Sugar 2019 (367) ELT 836 (All.) Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. vs. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The definition of the input service has been amended with effect 01.04.2011 vide notification no. 3/2011 CE (NT) Dated 01.03.2011 (Annx-D):- (1) input service means any service. (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal. and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing. financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of Inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal: but excludes services.- (A) specified in sub-clauses (p), (zn), (zzl). (zzm). (zzq), (zzzh) and (zzzza) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act (h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to manufacture the final product. The land and the factory were required directly and in any event indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and for the clearance thereof up to the place of removal. But for the factory the final product could not have been manufactured and the factory needed to be constructed on land. The land and the factory are used by the manufacturer in any event indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, namely, metal-sheets. The respondents case, therefore, falls within the first part of Rule 2(l) aptly referred to by Mr. Amrinder Singh as the means part. 9. The respondents case also falls within the second part of Rule 2(l) i.e. the inclusive part. The definition of the words input service also specifically includes the services used in relation to setting up of a factory. Mr. Amrinder Singh rightly contended that it was not the appellant s case that the services were not used for the setting up of the factory. The doubt in this regard is set at rest by the second part of Section 2(l)(ii) which includes within the ambit of the words input service the setting up of a factory and the premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
