TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nough 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. 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 source of payment for such service. This is an aspect that the appellant has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Katiyar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER : C J MATHEW This appeal of M/s JSW Steels (Salav) Limited, against order [order-in-original no. 78-79/MAK(78-79) COMMR/RGD/13-14 dated 27th September 2013] of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Raigad, pertains to the recovery of credit of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel for the appellant that by conformity with the definition of input service in rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 permitting such services as are used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of goods, with no evidence on record to dispute this claim for entitlement, denial thereto was inappropriate. According to him, the first limb of the definition itself include the impugned 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 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut services have been used by the manufacturer of finished goods, in the process of manufacture or for conducting this business of manufacture of finished goods, the Cenvat credit on the input services cannot be denied, even if the said services are received at place other than factory premises. Even in the case of inputs, Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Fertilizers Petrochemicals 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices. Among those services are services pertaining to the procurement of inputs and inward transportation of inputs. The Tribunal, proceeded to interpret the inclusive part of the definition and held that the Legislature restricted the benefit of Cenvat credit for input services used in respect of inputs only to these two categories viz. for the procurement of inputs and for the inward transportation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 630 CESTAT AHMEDABAD, was similarly applicable to the facts of the case. 6. The principal issue in this dispute is neither that of the appellant not having paid for the service inclusive of tax liability as recorded in the bills raised by the provider nor of such service not having been provided within the factory premises but, in fact, turns on whether the appellant was recipient of service. 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 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
