Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Vardhman Acrylics Ltd vs C.C.E-Bharuch on 3 January, 2018
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Zonal Bench 2nd Floor, Bahumali Building, Nr Girdharnagar Bridge, Asarwa Ahmedabad 380 004 Appeal No. : E/11892/2017 Arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-004-APP-127-2017-18 dt 06/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner ( Appeals ) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd - Appellant(s) Vs C.C.E-Bharuch - Respondent(s)
Represented by For Applicant(s) : Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For Respondent(s): Shri K J Kinariwala, Authorised representative CORAM :
Shri M V Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 03/01/2018 ORDER No. A/10122 / 2018 Per : Shri M V Ravindran, This appeal directed against OIA-VAD-EXCUS-004-APP-127-2017-18 dt 06/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner ( Appeals ) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue is regarding eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit of Service tax paid on Construction Services during period November 2009 to December 2013. It is the case of the Revenue . Show cause notice was issued to deny credit of Service Tax paid on construction services they are works contracts of building based upon the definition of the Input Service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. While it is the case of the appellant before the lower authorities that the Cenvat Credit has been availed by them on the invoice raised by the service providers are for repair and renovation of the factory premises. In support of such claim, the appellant produced before the lower authorities i.e., First Appellate Authority a certificate signed by the CA in respect of Cenvat Credit availed. The First Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal only on the ground under Construction Service is not eligible for Cenvat Credit.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made and perusal of the records, I do find that the CA has specifically stated that the services rendered by the service providers are towards repair of compound walls of factory at various places of their chemical plant. On specific query from the Bench sample invoices were produced, on perusal of which it is noticed they are for repair of plant and building. It cannot be said that the repairs of the plant are ineligible for Cenvat Credit as definition as Input Service excludes availment of Cenvat Credit in respect of the construction of new factory premises. These are the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority in Para 5. I find that the Ld Counsel was correct in submitting the issues is squarely covered by the case of TVS Motor Company Ltd vs CCE 2017(11)TMI.29 in the appellants favour. I find it so.
5. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case I hold the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to set aside. and I do so, The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (M V Ravindran) Member (Judicial) swami 2