Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appellate tribunal grants Cenvat credit for modernization, not construction

        RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -RAJKOT

        RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -RAJKOT - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Classification of services provided by service providers.
        2. Applicability of exclusion clause under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
        3. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on ECIS and WCS services.
        4. Interpretation of construction services in the context of Cenvat Credit Rules.
        5. Invocation of extended period of limitation for raising the demand.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Classification of Services Provided by Service Providers:

        The adjudicating authority admitted that the services provided by the service providers were correctly classified under ECIS. However, it later held that the services availed by the appellant were construction services used for making structures for support of capital goods, conflicting with its own findings and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CCE vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd and Sarvesh Refactories (P) Ltd vs. CCE. The appellant argued that once the classification of services was finalized at the service provider end, it could not be disturbed at the recipient end, a contention supported by the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, 1994.

        2. Applicability of Exclusion Clause under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:

        The adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat credit on the ground that the services fell under the exclusion clause in the definition of input services. The appellant contended that the services availed were not covered by the exclusion clause as they were classified under ECIS, not construction services. The exclusion clause was interpreted to align with the Negative List regime of services introduced post-01.07.2012, but the appellant argued that ECIS and WCS (in respect of ECIS) were never excluded from the definition of input services both before and after 01.07.2012.

        3. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on ECIS and WCS Services:

        The appellant argued that the services availed were for modernization and expansion of its manufacturing facilities, not for construction of buildings or civil structures. The credit availed was for installing and commissioning technological structures, which are parts, components, and accessories of capital goods. The adjudicating authority's contention that the services were used for making structures for support of capital goods was refuted by the appellant, who provided evidence that the services were for parts of capital goods themselves.

        4. Interpretation of Construction Services in the Context of Cenvat Credit Rules:

        The appellant argued that the term 'construction services' should be interpreted in the context of the Finance Act, 1994 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority's reliance on dictionary meanings and examples like the Eiffel Tower was deemed inappropriate. The appellant cited various judgments and circulars to support the interpretation that construction services are distinct from services like ECIS, which are not covered by the exclusion clause.

        5. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation for Raising the Demand:

        The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was invoked only because the appellant did not provide information during the audit, which is not a valid ground for invoking the extended period. It was contended that there was no willful suppression of facts, and the issue involved interpretation of the exclusion clause, which has been a subject of litigation. The demand for the extended period was found unsustainable on the grounds of limitation.

        Conclusion:

        The appellate tribunal found that the appellant correctly availed the Cenvat credit on ECIS services, which were not covered under the exclusion clause. The services were used for modernization and expansion of the manufacturing facilities, not for construction of buildings or civil structures. The classification of services at the service provider end could not be disturbed at the recipient end. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found