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 overturns decision denying CENVAT credit based on location, emphasizes service usage.</h1> <h3>M/s. Shirguppi Sugar Works Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Belagavi Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Shirguppi Sugar Works Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Belagavi Commissionerate - TMI Issues:1. Denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,94,619/- for control and transmission of power at switchyard.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (A)'s order partially allowing the appellant's appeal but denying the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,94,619/-. The appellant, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses, availed CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute arose from a show-cause notice issued based on audit observations, alleging that the appellant wrongly availed credit on certain input services not falling under the definition of input services. The Joint Commissioner allowed credit of Rs. 21,98,691/- but disallowed Rs. 5,95,505/-. The Commissioner (A) rejected the credit of Rs. 2,94,619/- related to the switchyard's control and power transmission, citing unclear location details.The appellant argued that the denial of credit for erection, commissioning, and installation of the switchyard was unjustified. They contended that the switchyard, installed within their factory premises, controlled and transmitted power for manufacturing machinery, requiring continuous uninterrupted power supply. The appellant provided invoices and a Chartered Engineer's certificate certifying the switchyard's location and function. They also argued that the audit report did not reveal any suppression of material facts to evade duty and challenged the limitation period and penalty imposition.The learned AR supported the impugned order, but the Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the record, found that the Commissioner (A) rejected the credit solely based on the lack of switchyard location proof. The Tribunal noted the Chartered Engineer's certificate, which clarified the switchyard's location and function. Relying on precedent cases emphasizing service usage over location for credit admissibility, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s decision and providing consequential relief without delving into the limitation issue. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 11/03/2019.
TaxTMI 