2022 (1) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 ST/863/2012 E/85732/2014 Period(s) of 1.1.2009 to 1.1.2010 to 1.7.2011 to Show  cause notice(s) dated 03.02.2010 19.03.2010 13.05.2010 5.08.2010 18.10.2010 09.12.2010 05.08.2011 03.10.2011 01.12.2011 31.01.2011 30.07.2012 01.10.2012 23.01.2013 Order-in- Original dated 24.12.2010 12.9.2012 27.11.2013 Order-in-Appeal  dated 26.09.2011 - -   Demand(s) of service tax Rs. 14,08,132/- for the period 1.1.2009 to 28.2.2009 Rs. 49,05,262/- for the period 1.3.2009 to 30.4.2009 Rs. 33,61,991/- for the period 1.5.2009 to 30.6.2009 Rs. 35,03,727/- for the period 1.7.2009 to 30.9.2009 Rs. 38,41,363/- for the period 1.10.2009 to 31.12.2009 Rs. 74,00,619/- for the period 1.1.2010 to 30.6.2010 Rs. 1,13,18,628/- for the period 1.7.2010 to 31.8.2010 Rs. 73,19,665/- for the period 1.9.2010 to 31.10.2010 Rs. 35,20,718/- for the period 1.11.2010 to 31.12.2010 Rs. 1,41,16,487/- for the period 1.1.2011 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is used for unloading of raw materials received by the appellants for use in the manufacturing of finished goods and for exporting the finished goods. 2.4  The appellants have taken credit of various input services such as maintenance and repair services, manpower recruitment services, technical analysis and testing services, cleaning services, supply of tangible goods etc., received by them in respect of vessels - MBC's (mini bulk carriers) and barges for their maintenance, staffing, technical inspection etc. 2.5  Show cause notices as indicated in para 1 above were issued to the appellants seeking to deny the credit, stating that these services have not been used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal. As per the department, the services were received in relation to vessels, tugs and port and hence do not have any nexus with the manufacturing activity. 2.6  The show cause notices were adjudicated as indicated in para 1 above, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Vikram Ispat [2010 (19) STR 52 (T)]. 2.7  Aggrieved by the impugned orders referred to i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.)].  • In the appellants' own case, the issue has been decided in their favour by this Tribunal in the following decisions holding the credit to be admissible:- • JSW Steel (Salav) Ltd. [2016 (46) STR 863 (T)]. • Tribunal Order No. A/235-240/13/SMB/C-IV dated 08.03.2013. 3.3  Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeals and during the course of argument. 4.2  We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in appellants' own case as reported in 2016 (46) STR 863 (Tri.-Mumbai), where in para 4 the Tribunal has held as follows:- "4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the Service Tax credit in respect of shipping fees and services availed in respect of vessels and barges is covered by the order of Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide order dated 11-3- 2014 and 8-3-2013. In view of the above, credit of these services is available and is allowed." 4.3  In appellants' own case vide order No. A/235- 240/13....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....put services, the services should have been received in the factory premises as per the impugned order, goes contrary to the entire scheme of input service distributor whereby an input service distributor distributes cenvat credit on the services received by him to his various entities engaged in the manufacture of finished goods. 4.7  Thus we are of the view that till the time it can be shown that input services have been used by the manufacturer of finished goods, in the process of manufacture or for conducting this business of manufacture of finished goods, the Cenvat credit on the input services cannot be denied, even if the said services are received at place other than factory premises. Even in the case of inputs, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. [2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.)], held as follows:- "5. Now at the outset it must be noted that Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit inter alia of Service Tax which is paid on (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of the final product; and (ii) any input service received by the manufacturer of the final prod....