Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Haco Machinery Private Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 3 November, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Excise Appeal No.E/50644/2015-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.01/CE/Appl-II/Delhi/2014 dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Delhi].
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Haco Machinery Private Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri D.K. Tyagi, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Bhatnagar, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.11.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 54154/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on construction service is the subject matter of present dispute. The Department has denied the cenvat benefit on the ground that the disputed service has not been used for manufacture of the final product and did not fall under the definition of input service.
2. The period involved in the present dispute is from 2006-07 to 2009-10. The embargo relating to taking of cenvat credit on the construction service was brought to the definition of input service on 01.04.2011. Since, the period involved in this case is prior to the amendment of definition of input service, I am of the view that the credit cannot be denied to the appellant. In this context, I find that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Liugong Indian Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Indore reported in 2015 (38) STR 96 (Tri. Del.) has allowed the cenvat benefit on the services used for setting up of factory, holding that such service should qualify as input service prior to amendment of Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, effective upto 31.03.2011.
2. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 2