Tribunal grants cenvat credit for fabrication and maintenance services.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding in favor of the appellant regarding the denial of cenvat credit on input services for fabrication and erection of pipes, repair, and maintenance in the factory premises. The Tribunal held that the services were necessary for modernization, renovation, or repairs within the factory premises and were not excluded under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Consequently, the appellant was granted the cenvat credit, and the appeal was successful with consequential relief provided.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding denial of cenvat credit on input services for fabrication and erection of pipes, repair and maintenance in factory premises.

Issue 1: Denial of cenvat credit on input services

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceuticals, had taken cenvat credit on various inputs and input services during 2012-13 and 2013-14. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand raised and imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed, confirming the duty demand but disallowing input service tax credit of Rs.2,77,703 on miscellaneous constructions, fabrication, erection of pipes, and CGI shed installation. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the cenvat credit under Rule 2 (1)(ii)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that the services were excluded from the definition of input services.

Issue 2: Admissibility of cenvat credit on specific services

The services received by the appellant for fabrication and erection of pipes fittings and repair and maintenance in the factory premises were deemed necessary for modernization, renovation, or repairs within the factory premises. These services were not part of works contract or construction services as specified under the Finance Act, 1944. The appellant's advocate cited Board Circular No.943/4/2011-CX and highlighted that similar credit was allowed for their sister unit in a previous order. The Tribunal noted that the services were used for repair, maintenance, modernization, and fabrication at the factory premises, making the credit admissible and not falling under the exclusion clause of Rule 2 (1)(ii)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that the cenvat credit on the input services for repair, maintenance, modernization, and fabrication at the factory premises was admissible. The appeal succeeded with consequential relief granted to the appellant.

---