Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.14 seconds)
The Commissioner vs M/S Madras Cements Ltd on 19 February, 2016 cites

Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd on 1 September, 2009

3. The issue involved is whether the respondents are eligible for service tax credit of Rs.10,30,340/- availed on various construction services. The learned AR relied upon the judgment laid in CCE Vs Sundaram Brake Linings [2010(19)STR-172(Tri.Chennai)] and CCE, Nagpur Vs Manikargarh Cement[2010(20)STR-456(Bom)]. He argued that the service did not qualify as input services, as there was no nexus between the service and the business of the respondents. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order which is as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

M/S. Liugong Indian Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.- Indore on 31 March, 2014

4. From the above, it is clear that the constructions were carried out for the purpose starting production in the factory. These services are very much included in services necessary for setting up, modernization of factory/premises. The decisions relied by the Revenue is not applicable to the present case as in Sundaram Brake Linings the issue under consideration was the eligibility of credit on outdoor catering services. Further, in Liugong Indian Pvt.Ltd Vs CCE&ST, Indor [2015(38)-STR- 96(Tri.Del)], the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has held that the credit on services availed for setting up of the factory is admissible prior to 01-04-2011. Following the dictum laid therein, I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1