TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Appellant's CENVAT Credit Claim, Commissioner (Appeals) to Reevaluate</h1> <h3>ANAR CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD</h3> ANAR CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 32 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Availability of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid for services related to the Effluent Treatment Plant.2. Denial of CENVAT Credit due to procedural lapses and non-payment of Service Tax by the service provider.Issue 1: Availability of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid for services related to the Effluent Treatment Plant:The dispute in this appeal concerns the availability of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid for services related to the Effluent Treatment Plant. The appellant argued that the Effluent Treatment Plant is mandatory for their business operations as per the standards set by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. They contended that services required for maintaining the plant fall under the definition of input services, as established by various legal precedents such as Indian Farmers Fertilisers Co-op. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad and other cases. The appellant emphasized that the services used in activities related to business, including the maintenance of the Effluent Treatment Plant, should be eligible for CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments, citing previous judgments that supported the broad definition of input services and the nexus between services and the manufactured goods.Issue 2: Denial of CENVAT Credit due to procedural lapses and non-payment of Service Tax by the service provider:Regarding the denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 3,50,286 and Rs. 56,374, the Tribunal found ambiguity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. It was unclear whether the denial was based on procedural lapses or the non-payment of Service Tax by the service provider. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine these issues, considering the appellant's arguments and the relevant Tribunal decisions presented. The Tribunal set aside the demand of Rs. 1,01,797, along with associated interest and penalties, while remanding the other issues back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the availability of CENVAT Credit for services related to the Effluent Treatment Plant. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the denial of CENVAT Credit based on procedural lapses and non-payment of Service Tax, prompting a reevaluation by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with specific directions for further review and consideration on certain issues.
TaxTMI 