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 Grants Input Credit on Warranty Repair Charges</h1> <h3>M/s Terex Equipments P Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida</h3> M/s Terex Equipments P Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida - TMI Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying Cenvat credit on service tax paid on warranty provided by dealers for Excavators, Backhoe Loader & Skid Steer.Analysis:1. Facts of the Case: The appellant, a manufacturer of equipment, was denied input service credit on service charges paid to dealers during the warranty period. A Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 33,344 for the period from April 2012 to December 2012. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the subsequent Order-in-Appeal.2. Legal Argument: The appellant argued that the warranty service provided by dealers after the sale of equipment should be considered as an activity relating to the sale of goods, entitling them to input service credit. The Revenue contended that warranty services are not input services for the manufacturer of the goods.3. Precedent Decision: The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that repair and maintenance during the warranty period is an activity related to the sale of goods. Citing the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara II Vs. Danke Products, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to input service credit on repair charges paid to dealers during the warranty period.4. Final Decision: The Tribunal found the precedent decision applicable to the present case and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal granted consequential relief to the appellant in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed based on the established legal principle that warranty services provided by dealers post-sale should be considered as activities related to the sale of goods, entitling the manufacturer to claim input service credit on repair charges paid during the warranty period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
