9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 to September 2012 Rs.20,99,394/- Rs.20,99,394/- 3 E/52364/2015 October 2012 to March 2013 Rs.3,08,86,674/- Rs.3,08,86,674/- 4 E/52365/2015 April 2013 to February 2014 Rs.5,25,74,628/- Rs.5,25,74,628/- 3 E/60494/2019 March 2016 to March 2017 Rs.6,42,34,134/- Rs.64,23,413/- 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Excavator Loaders & Earthmoving Machines of chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was registered with the central excise department under Central Excise Act, 1944. a) While selling the aforesaid earth moving machineries, the appellant promises "free services" to its customers, during the warranty period of the machines sold. b) For this purpose, the appellant entered into a contractual relationship with its dealers, who are requested to provide the aforesaid free service to the customers, on behalf of JCB India Limited. Pursuant to aforesaid contractual relationship, the dealers of the appellant render free service to the customers concerned, which service is rendered on behalf of the appellant. The dealer does not charge anything from the customer in this regard inasmuch as, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout the eligibility of credit to the company in respect of the said services. (iv) The adjudicating authority mainly relied upon the case laws of Ambuja Cement Ltd - 2009 (14) STR 3 (P & H) to support his findings and confirm the above demands of Cenvat Credit. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the appellant filed the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside as the same have been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and binding judicial precedents in the appellant"s own case. 4.2 He further submits that Cenvat Credit on "warranty free services" has been correctly availed in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules since such services are covered under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4.3 He further submits that "in-warranty repair and maintenance services" rendered by the dealers are covered under "means" clause of the definition of "input service". The repair and maintenance services were received by the appellant from the dealers in order to fulfill warranty obli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Counsel also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant"s own case for the subsequent period has allowed the Cenvat Credit of service tax on free warranty services vide Order-in-Appeal No. 38/CE/CGST/Appeal-Gurugram/SG/2019 dated 31.05.2019, which is for the subsequent period, whereas the present appeals pertains to earlier period, except the period there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.6 He further submits that in the appellant"s own case, cited supra, this Tribunal vide its Orders dated 28.04.2023 and 20.07.2023, has allowed the appeals of the appellant on the identical issue by passing detailed orders. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR reiterated the findings of the impugned orders. 6. After considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants and perusal of the material on record, we find that the identical issue in the appellant"s own case has been considered at length by this Tribunal and thereafter, this Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the appellant. It will be relevant to reproduce the said findings of this Tribunal on this issue itself, which are recorded in para 16 to 28 in Final Order No. A/60111-6011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for consideration in the present appeal is whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the appellant on "repair and maintenance services" provided by the dealers for fulfilling the warranty obligations of the appellant has been denied for good and valid reasons. 20. To examine this issue, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the definition of "input service", as defined in rule 2(l) of the Credit Rules. Rule 2(l) was substituted by Notification dated 01.03.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and it is reproduced below : w.e.f. 01.04.2011- 2(l) "input service" means any service,- (i)used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by the 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 modernization, 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, recruitme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision, if that is correct, then the department has accepted the said decision and in the present appeals they are precluded from taking a contrary stand. 24. Further, we also find that the department has filed appeals before the Hon'ble High Court where the Tribunal has given the relief to the assessee but the decisions of the Tribunal in those cases have not been stayed and hence, the ratio of the said decisions are binding on the lower authorities. 25. Further, we also find that the department has not been able to distinguish the latest two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. and M/s Case New Holland Construction Equipment (I) Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra) involving identical issues wherein all earlier decisions of the Tribunal were considered and thereafter, the demands were dropped. 26. Further, we are of the opinion that the decisions relied upon by the Revenue are not directly on the issue and does not reflect the controversy involved in the present case. 27. In view of our discussion above, we hold that the appellant has correctly availed cenvat credit on the amount of service tax paid for the services provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
