TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered by them to various clients. In the present case, the appellant has been denied the credit of Central Excise duty paid on the pipes supplied by them to EPC contractor M/s. Essar Construction (India) Ltd., through whom the manufacturer of pipes supplied the pipes. In the invoice, M/s. Essar Constructions (India) Ltd., EPC contractor was shown as the purchaser and applicant was shown as consignee. In the EPC contract executed between the appellant and M/s. Essar Constructions (India) Ltd., the contract consisted of two portions viz. sales/supply and service. The pipes were supplied in terms of the contract relating to the supply/sales of goods to the appellant. The credit of Central Excise duty paid on pipes has been, denied to the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for Cenvat Credit. It was submitted that Modvat scheme and Cenvat scheme are same. Therefore, reliance upon Board's circular issued in 1995 is opt (sic) (apt). In this connection, the decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE, Belgaum v. Vasavadatta Cement as reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 335 (Tri.-Bang.) was also relied upon. Learned advocate also relied upon the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of M/s. ABB Limited v. CCE, Bangalore as reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tri.-LB) and Hon'ble Mumbai High Court decision in case of M/s. Coco Cola Ltd. v. CCE, Pune dated 26-8-2009 [2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 (Bom.) = 2009 (242) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.)], in support of his contention that the appellants are eligible for the benefit of Cenvat C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant would be paying lower amount of Service tax. This is not the intention. Once the EPC contractor opted for the benefit of Notification No. 12/03, the question of availment of Cenvat Credit by his client does not arise, fie also stressed on the point that what has been used for providing services is the pipeline and not the pipes. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We are not at all convinced with the observations of the Commissioner in the impugned order to hold that the appellants are not eligible for Cenvat Credit on the pipes. We are unable to appreciate dip fact that if the Cenvat Credit is allowed, it would result in double benefit because the pipeline service provider would have availed the benefit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tured. In such cases, it is nobody's case that Cenvat Credit of duty paid on raw materials/components etc. purchased by the manufacturer and handed over to the contractor for the purpose of construction of various equipments required for the factory, is not admissible. Once that is accepted, just because the pipes have been purchased by the appellant and handed over to the EPC contractor for construction of pipelines, it cannot be said that they are not eligible for the benefit of Cenvat credit. Further, it is also not the case of the Department that the credit has been taken by both tin contractor as well as the party. Further, it is also not the case of the Department that the appellants have not received the pipes. No case has been made ....