Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Welspun Corp. Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.Tax, Vadodara Ii on 24 November, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, 2nd Floor, Bahumali Bhavan, Asarwa, Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.13362 of 2013 -SM Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.PJ/150/VDR-II/2013-14 dated 18.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Vadodara. Welspun Corp. Ltd .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E. & S.Tax, Vadodara II .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri H.D.Dave, Advocate for the Appellants Present Shri K.J. Kinariwala, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision:24.11.2017 Final Order No.A/13600/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides. This is an Appeal filed against the Order-in Appeal No. PJ/150/VDR-II/2013-14 dated 18.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Vadodara.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had availed Cenvat credit of service tax of Rs.3,46,449/- paid on cargo handling services (loading and unloading) of the pipes at the customers premises during the period April 2006 to August 2011. The demand notice was issued to them for recovery of the demand with interest on 15.9.2009 invoking extended period of limitation. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed Appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their Appeal. Hence, the present Appeal.
3. Ld. Advocate Shri H.D. Dave for the Appellant submits that on agreement with the customers, namely, GAIL (India) Limited and HPCL, they were required to supply pipelines at the customers yard which later were subjected to three layers of poly coating. He submits that pursuant to the said contract, the pipes were supplied by the Appellants. It is his contention that therefore, handling charges incurred at various locations including the customers yard be considered as input service. Accordingly, the service tax paid on such cargo handing charges is eligible to Cenvat credit in view of the judgment of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of C.C.E. vs. Inductotherm India P. Ltd. 2014 (36) STR 994 (Guj.).
4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals.).
5. I find that the terms of the contract with M/s GAIL reads as follows:
1.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work under this contract includes receiving and taking over the bare pipes from line pipe manufacturer at Dahej, transportation of bare pipes to coating plant, coating, transportation of all bare and coated pipes to six storage yards/dumpsites including arrangement, development, maintenance and management of six storage yards. Detailed scope of work under this contract shall be as defined under various sections of Bidding Document subject to modifications made vide Commercial Corrigendum & Technical Corrigendum enclosed as Annexure -3 to this Detailed Letter of Acceptance.
On a plain reading of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the agreement, it is clear that the Appellant is required to effect the delivery of the pipes at the customers premises for the purpose of coating. In these circumstances, the principles laid down by the Honble Gujarat High Court in Inductotherm India P. Ltd.s case (supra) is squarely applicable. Accordingly, following the said judgment, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/ E/13362/2013-SM 4