2017 (6) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f CENVAT credit of Rs. 17,32,270/- on various counts. It was alleged that they had availed credit of Rs. 1,02,132/- on inputs/capital goods, which were used for erection of transmission line in bringing electricity from outside, to the factory premises, Rs. 4,93,821/- availed on M.S. Channels, Angles, Beams etc, which were used as supporting structure to various capital goods viz. steam line, water line, stair case etc, in their factory premises, Rs. 37,389/- availed on input services, namely, Engineering & Construction Service, which were used in the installation and erection of transmission line, tower, shed etc Rs. 10,98,928/- availed as credit on service tax paid in respect of Security Services, Courier Services, Maintenance & Repair Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tri.-Del.). On the issue of utilization of input services for installation, and maintenance of transmission line, towers etc., outside the factory premises, ld. advocate has referred to the judgement of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Parry Engg. & Electronics P. Ltd Vs. C.C.E & S.T. Ahmedabad-I,II,III 2015 (40) STR 243 (Tri.-LB). On the issue of eligibility of CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on various input services against invoices issued by their sales offices which were not registered as Input Services Distributor, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the issue is covered by the Judgement of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). 14. The Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd.'s case (supra) laid down that even if the iron and articles were used as supporting structures, they would not be eligible for the credit. Considering the amendment made w.e.f. 7-7-2009 as a clarification amendment and hence to be considered retrospectively. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., 2015 (04) LCX0197 = 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.), wherein it was observed that the amendment made on 7-7-2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospe....