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 allows credits for modernization & repair, sets aside penalties</h1> <h3>M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Versus CCE, Hyderabad - I</h3> M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Versus CCE, Hyderabad - I - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 92 (Tri. - Hyd.) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on works contract services for the period April 2011 to December 2012.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under CENVAT Credit Rules.3. Applicability of exclusions within the definition of 'input service.'4. Imposition of penalties for irregular availment of credit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on works contract services for the period April 2011 to December 2012:The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicles and components, availed CENVAT credit on services like works contract service. The original authority allowed credit for most services but disallowed Rs. 7,246. The Commissioner (Appeals) further disallowed credit of Rs. 1,02,189, leading to the present appeal. The core issue is whether the services availed qualify as input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under CENVAT Credit Rules:The definition of 'input service' underwent changes during the relevant period. Prior to 01.04.2011, it included services related to 'setting up, modernization, renovation, or repairs of a factory.' Post 01.04.2011, the term 'setting up' was removed, and exclusions were introduced. The appellant argued that the exclusion pertains only to new constructions, while services for modernization, renovation, or repairs of existing structures should be eligible for credit.3. Applicability of exclusions within the definition of 'input service':The appellant contended that the works undertaken (expansion of ETP, epoxy flooring, and foundation works for cooling tower) were for modernization and repair, not new constructions, thus falling within the inclusive part of the definition. The Commissioner (Appeals) held these services fall under the exclusion part, disallowing the credit. The Tribunal analyzed whether the exclusions apply to new constructions only or also to modernization and repair of existing structures.4. Imposition of penalties for irregular availment of credit:The Tribunal examined whether penalties for irregular availment of credit were justified. Given the interpretational nature of the issue, the Tribunal found that no penalty should be imposed.Tribunal's Findings:- Expansion of ETP and Epoxy Flooring: The Tribunal held that these works are for modernization and repair, not new constructions, thus eligible for credit. The credit of Rs. 37,389 (ETP) and Rs. 63,873 (flooring) was allowed.- Foundation Works for Cooling Tower: The Tribunal disallowed credit of Rs. 927 for laying the foundation, as it falls under the exclusion part of the definition of input service.- Penalties: The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed, recognizing the interpretational nature of the issue.Conclusion:The impugned order was set aside to the extent of disallowing credit for ETP expansion and flooring works. The disallowance of credit for foundation works was sustained. Penalties were set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed with consequential reliefs.
TaxTMI 