TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>PSU wins appeal for CENVAT Credit on Coal Handling Plant construction</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a PSU, confirming the eligibility of CENVAT Credit for the construction of a Coal Handling Plant (CHP). The Tribunal ... CENVAT Credit - inputs and input services received for construction of Coal Handling plant (CHP) - denial of credit on the ground that the input services received by the appellant does not constitute eligible ‘input service’ in terms of the definition under Rule 2 (l) of the Credit Rules, under the exclusion clause - HELD THAT:- The present Show Cause Notice is by way of continuation as statement of demand have been issued with reference to earlier Show Cause Notice No.V(30)78/CEX/BCCL Govindpur/Adj/DNB(H)/2016/8705 dated 27.09.2016 for the period June 2013 to November 2015. On going through this Tribunal in M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S. TAX, RANCHI [2021 (10) TMI 383 - CESTAT KOLKATA], it is found that the very same issue had come up before a Division Bench of this Tribunal and the Division Bench have recorded that CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant for setting up of CHP, which is used for evacuation of coal by rapid loading process, cannot be legally denied. In view of the categorically findings of the Division Bench in favour of the appellant, it is found that the issue is no more res-integra and the appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether Cenvat Credit was rightly disallowed for construction of the Coal Handling Plant (CHP) during the period December 2015 to October 2016.Summary:1. Background and Appellant's Argument:The appellant, a PSU and 100% subsidiary of Coal India Limited, engaged in coal production, availed CENVAT Credit on inputs and service tax paid on input services for the construction and setting up of a Coal Handling Plant (CHP) including Silo facilities. The authorities denied the credit, arguing that the input services did not qualify as eligible 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Credit Rules, citing the exclusion clause.2. Prior Tribunal Decision:The appellant referenced a previous decision by the Division Bench of the Tribunal (Final Order no. 75645/2021 dated 07.10.2021) which ruled in their favor for a similar issue for an earlier period (June 2013 to November 2015). Although the Department appealed this decision to the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, no stay order was issued, and the matter had not been taken up for hearing.3. Revenue's Position:The Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for Revenue relied on the impugned order and reiterated that the Revenue had appealed against the Division Bench's Final Order.4. Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal noted that the present Show Cause Notice was a continuation of an earlier notice for the period June 2013 to November 2015. The Division Bench had previously determined that services used for setting up the CHP, which modernized the coal loading process, qualified as 'input service' under the main part of the definition in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, even post-01.04.2011.5. User Test Principle:The Tribunal applied the 'user test' principle, as upheld by the Supreme Court, to determine credit eligibility. It was concluded that structures supporting machinery essential for manufacturing qualify as integral parts of the machinery, thus eligible for credit.6. Consistency in Judicial Decisions:The Tribunal cited consistent judicial decisions, including those from various High Courts, supporting the eligibility of credit for services used in setting up essential infrastructure for manufacturing.7. Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the CHP's purpose of modernizing the coal loading process met the definition of input service. The credit availed by the appellant was deemed legally valid, and the impugned demand order was set aside.8. Final Order:The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the impugned order was set aside. The issue was declared no longer res-integra, affirming the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT Credit.9. Pronouncement:The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
