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>Appellant's CENVAT benefit denial overturned for Service Tax on residential colony services.</h1> <h3>M/s Manikgarh Cement Versus Commissioner of Central Excise &Customs, Nagpur</h3> M/s Manikgarh Cement Versus Commissioner of Central Excise &Customs, Nagpur - TMI Issues involved: Denial of CENVAT benefit of Service Tax paid on various services used in the residential colonySummary:The judgment concerns the denial of CENVAT benefit of Service Tax paid on services used in the residential colony of the assessee-appellant. The authorities held that since the disputed services were used outside the factory and had no connection with the manufacture of final products, they could not be considered as 'input service' for the purpose of availing the CENVAT benefit. The period of dispute was from April 2009 to March 2011, under the un-amended provisions of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The definition of 'input service' includes 'activities relating to business,' which is crucial for considering services as input service for granting the CENVAT Credit to the manufacturer/service provider. The appellant had considered the cost of disputed services towards maintenance and repair of the residential colony adjacent to the factory premises in the cost of production of final products, on which appropriate Central Excise duty liability had been discharged.The show-cause notice referenced the statement of the Dy. General Manager (Finance) of the appellant company, indicating that the expenses on maintenance of the residential colony were business-related and indirectly linked to the manufacture of excisable goods. A certificate by Chartered Accountants confirmed that the cost of services for construction, repairs, and maintenance in the residential colony formed part of the value of final products manufactured by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that in the appellant's earlier case, CENVAT benefit was allowed on identical facts. The Tribunal emphasized that once the cost of services is taken as expenses and included in the cost of the final product, the credit is admissible. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order upholding the denial of the CENVAT benefit and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, with any consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
