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

2023 (12) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of Rs. 1,21,36,223/- taken under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for the period from March 2006 to September 2010 and for the period from April 2011 to December 2011, that the appellant was held as not entitled to. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who operates a jetty for 'captive use' at Salav on the banks of Revanda creek under a thirty year lease agreement with the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) for unloading of 'iron ore lumps' and 'iron ore pellets' at the last stage of transportation to their factory for use in the manufacture of 'hot briquettes iron' and 'sponge iron', had, in order to ensure availability of sufficient depth in the creek, for vessels carrying the raw materials from ships at anchorage to convenie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pugned activity and, in addition, the second limb, incorporating 'procurement of inputs' as well as 'inward transportation of input goods', sufficed to enable availment of tax discharged on receipt of the impugned activity as credit. It was further submitted that the expression 'activities relating to business', as existed prior to 1st April 2011 and with no limits thereon, would also apply to a substantial portion of the demand. That the expression 'activity relating to business' is inclusive of all of these was sought to be supported by reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - II [2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Commiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cals Corpn. Ltd. [2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.)], held as follows:- "5. Now at the outset it must be noted that Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit inter alia of Service Tax which is paid on (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of the final product; and (ii) any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product. The subordinate legislation in the present case makes a distinction between inputs or capital goods on the one hand and input services on the other. Clause (i) above provides that the Service Tax should be paid on any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of the final product. Such a restriction, however, is not imposed in regard to inp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tation of inputs. This interpretation which has been placed by the Tribunal is ex facie contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 2(l). The first part of Rule 2(l) inter alia covers any services used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The inclusive part of the definition enumerates certain specified categories of services. However, it would be farfetched to interpret Rule 2(l) to mean that only two categories of services in relation to inputs viz. for the procurement of inputs and for the inward transportation of inputs were intended to be brought within the purview of Rule 2(l). Rule 2(l) must be read in its entirety. The Tribunal has placed an interpretation which runs co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . While 'input service' in rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is broad enough to cover activities that found even indirect use in manufacture, the primary eligibility, arising from rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 accruing only to the recipient of 'such service', is untenable. 7. It is common ground that the waters, which had been deepened by dredging for approach of barges, did not belong to the appellant. Nor do the waters belong to any particular owner other than the Republic of India. The administrative control over such waters is vested with the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) and any improvement, or enhancement of capability, would render the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) to be recipient of service irrespective of the sour .....

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