Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Supreme Industries Ltd vs Vadodara-Ii on 24 January, 2020
CUSTOMS,EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD
REGIONAL BENCH : COURT NO - 1
Excise Appeal No. 12785 of 2018-SM
(Arising out of OIA no. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-215-2018-19 dated 30/07/2018 passed by
Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-
VADODARA-II)
The Supreme Industries Ltd Appellant
Survey No. 123/1 & 123/2, Paiky 2, Muvala, Halol,
PANCHMAHALS
GUJARAT
-VERSUS-
C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii Respondent
1ST FLOOR... ROOM NO.101, NEW CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, VADODARA, GUJARAT 390023 Present For the Appellant : Shri H.P. Kanade, Advocate Present For the Respondent : Shri V.K. Lukose, Authorised Representative CORAM:
HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU FINAL ORDER NO. A/10250 / 2020 Date of Hearing: 10/01/2020 Date of Decision: 24/01/2020 RAJU This appeal has been filed by M/s Supreme Industries Ltd. against order of Commissioner (Appeal) setting aside the Order-in-Original passed by Assistant Commissioner, LTU (Mumbai).
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that Revenue is seeking to deny the Cenvat credit on certain services used in setting up of factory during 17.10.2012 to 29.09.2014. Learned counsel pointed out that the entire argument of the Revenue is based on change in the definition of the term „input services‟ in the Cenvat Credit Rules. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel that omission of the words "setting up" from the definition of the input services does not mean that the appellants are not entitled for Cenvat Credit on the services used in setting up of the factory premises. Learned Counsel pointed out that original Adjudicating Authority had allowed the credit holding that the services in relation to structural components which are essential parts of the equipments machinery will be eligible for CENVAT Credit. The Original adjudicating authority had observed that only if the services related to construction or execution of work contract of building or a civil 2 E/12785/2018-SM structure or a part thereof; or laying of foundation of making of structures, like fabrication, foundation work for support of capital goods only are excluded in the instant case. The Order in Original had specifically held that the circular no. 964/07/2012-CX dated 02.04.2012, clarified by circular no. 966/09/2012-CX dated 18.05.2012 related to boiler will also apply to all equipments/machinery. The Order-in-Original had also observed that the said services are also covered by the expression in the „means‟ part of the definition of input service, under the expression "in or in relation to manufacture of final product" and hence, the omission of the expression "in relation to setting up of factory" does not make any difference on admissibility of Cenvat credit.
2.1 Learned Counsel pointed out that the impugned order solely relies on the exclusion of words „setting up‟ from the definition and does not look into the expression "used in or in relation to manufacture of final products" and, therefore, is bad in law and needs to set aside.
3. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the impugned order.
4. I have gone through rival submissions. I find that the original adjudicating authority has clearly held that the services in dispute are covered by the expression used in or in relation to manufacture of final products and, therefore, even if the words „setting up‟ are deleted from the definition of input services, it makes no difference. I also find that the impugned order does not dispute the finding of the Original Adjudicating Authority that the services are covered by the expression "used in or relation to manufacture of final product". The impugned order solely relied on the omission of words „setting up‟ from the definition of input services. It is seen that the Original Adjudicating Authority had not allowed the benefit under that expression of the definition which has been challenged by Revenue. In these circumstances I find that the findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority that the said services are covered by the expression used in or in relations to manufacture of final products remains undisturbed by the impugned order. Consequently, the appellant remains entitled to Cenvat Credit of the disputed services under the expression "used in or in relation to manufacture of final products". The appeal is, consequently, allowed.
(Pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2020) (Raju) Member (Technical) Diksha