2016 (12) TMI 1528 - HC - Service Tax

Classification of Cement & Steel in Construction for Cenvat Credit: Key Legal Analysis & Implications

The court considered the classification of cement and steel used in the construction of a jetty as Inputs or Capital Goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules. ... Denial of CENVAT credit - cement and steel - identical questions involved in the present Appeals is at large before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Appeal arising from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. Vs. C.C.E & Customs [2015 (5) TMI 663 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Registry to notify the Appeals for final hearing after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. (Supra) and on the note filed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of either of the parties. Issues:1. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding Input Cenvat Credit on cement and steel used in construction of jetty.2. Eligibility of input/capital goods Cenvat Credit for construction of an immovable property like a jetty, which is an exempted service.Analysis:1. The first issue before the court was whether the CESTAT was correct in denying Input Cenvat Credit on cement and steel used in the construction of a jetty. The court considered the amendment of Explanation 2 of the definition of 'Input' in Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The question was whether cement and steel used in the construction of a jetty could be classified as Inputs or Capital Goods. The court admitted the appeals to consider this substantial question of law, especially in light of a similar matter before the Supreme Court.2. The second issue involved the correctness of the CESTAT's decision to accept the plea of the assessee regarding entitlement to input/capital goods Cenvat Credit for the construction of a jetty, which is considered an immovable property. The construction of a port was deemed an exempted service, raising the question of whether inputs and capital goods used in the construction of a jetty for an exempted service would be eligible for Cenvat Credit under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The court noted the waiver of service of notice of admission by the respondent's advocate and scheduled the appeals for final hearing post the Supreme Court's decision in a related case.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issues of Cenvat Credit eligibility for construction materials and capital goods used in the context of a jetty construction project and the implications of the project being associated with an exempted service. The court's decision will likely provide clarity on the interpretation and application of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in similar cases involving construction activities for exempted services.