Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Larsen And Toubro Limited Timber Shop ... vs Commissioner Of Gst&Amp;Central ... on 5 March, 2019
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/41049/2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 43/2018 (CTA-I) dated
30.1.2018 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central
Excise (Appeals - I), Chennai)
M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Puducherry Respondent
Appearance Shri K. Pattabiraman, Auth. Rep. for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision: 05.03.2019 Final Order No. 40404 / 2019 Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of steel and aluminium materials and are also availing the facility of CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input services. During the course of verification of records, it was noticed that they had availed input service tax credit on civil construction 2 service doe on works contract basis for the period from 1.1.2016 to 31.3.2017. It appeared that the said service is not eligible for input service. Show cause notice dated 24.4.2017 was issued proposing to recover the CENVAT credit of Rs.34,330/-. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/-. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of appellant, Shri K. Pattabiraman, authorized representative appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the works undertaken were for repair and maintenance of the factory. Periodical repair works are undertaken to upkeep the factory in good condition. The work such as flooring, aluminum form monolithic flooring, fencing, laying of gate post etc. were done. These are not in the nature of works contract service but only fall under repair and maintenance service as well as modernization of the factory. Such activities fall within the definition of input service. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 41111 to 41113/2018 dated 16.4.2018 and argued that for the earlier period, the Tribunal on very same set of facts had allowed the credit.
3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that the definition of input 3 service excludes works contract service. The works done are in the nature of flooring etc. Such works would fall within the exclusion clause as any work done for part of civil structure also would be excluded from the definition of input service.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The appellant is aggrieved by the disallowance of CENVAT credit on services which have been received by them for work done in the nature of flooring, fencing, laying of gate post etc. On perusal of the invoices placed in pages 55 and 56 of the appeal paper book, it is seen that the works undertaken are in the nature of flooring works, fencing, gate post and charges for repairing work etc. It is very much clear from the documents that the works undertaken are in the nature of repair and maintenance work. The exclusion clause in the definition of input service excludes only works contract service which is in the nature of construction of civil structure, part thereof or laying of foundation or support structure for capital goods. The works undertaken by the appellant does not fall under this category. Further, the inclusion part of the definition allows service in the nature of repair and maintenance as well as modernization of factory / premises. Therefore, I am of the view that the services availed are in the nature of repair and maintenance / modernization and are eligible for credit. In the appellant's own case for the earlier period, the Tribunal has 4 allowed the credit. In such circumstances, there is no ground to disallow the credit. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) Rex