2018 (7) TMI 704

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vices'. The respondent-assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s. Aditya Cement, Chittorgarh for construction of Cement plant as well as for laying down the foundation of capital goods which are to be used in the factory. As per the agreement between the service provider and the service recipient, some raw material such as cement reinforcement, industrial, MS angles, TNT bars etc. were to be supplied by the service recipient namely, M/s. Aditya Cement for construction and laying down of foundation stone for these machines in the factory. The assessee included the value of free supply materials in the assessable value for computing the value of services for payment of Service Tax and as also not claimed any abatement of the portion of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Cenvat Credit was for the period from March, 2007 to April, 2010, and as the amendment to the definition of inputs under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has come into effect from 7.7.2009, the learned Commissioner was of the view that since the amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been issued under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and therefore, it is prospective in nature and applicability of the same cannot be made retrospectively. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner had allowed the cenvat credit of Rs. 20,64,32,43/- to the assessee which was taken during the period from January, 2007 to 6.7.2009 and the balance Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,56,880/- was disallowed and equal amount of penalty was also imposed und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... construction of factory shed and in laying down the foundation of various capital goods. 5. We have heard both the sides and also perused the relevant papers of the appeal. 6. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee has mentioned that the matter is no longer res integra as it has been held by various High Courts and this Tribunal that the amendment of Rule 2(k) with effect from 7.7.2009 was prospective in nature and same cannot be made retrospective and therefore, order-in-original passed by the learned Commissioner is absolutely legal and as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. Learned Advocate has relied on various judgements especially the order issued by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mundra Por....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the same reason, as mentioned above, the decision of the Apex Court in Sangam Spinners Limited v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 408 = 2011 (266) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case." 7. Learned Advocate has also cited the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC& CE, Raipur [ 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tri-Del)] which has also been endorsed by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. Relevant extract of the judgment are also being reproduced hereinbelow: "15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 (255) E.....