TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He invites my attention to the conference papers and also shown the minutes of meeting of the Board wherein it is pointed out that work for which the Board meeting was conducted is for re-carpeting of existing road. On this basis, it is his submission that if the industrial estate already existing and roads were also existing hence the work of re-carpeting of roads falls under repair or renovation, which is specified in inclusive clause of definition of Input Service in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that the entire basis for denial of credit that it is a new construction of road, is not correct and the order is not sustainable. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Limited vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot - 2022 (4) TMI 729 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD. 3. Shri R P Parekh, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that whether it is new construction or repair, the construction service/ works contract service has been excluded from the definition of Input Service, therefore, credit is not admissible on the service of road construction. 4. I have consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced below:- BHARAT COKING COAL LTD VS. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.TAX, RANCHI - MANU/CK/0036/2021 "9. Further, the said CHP has been set up with the view to 'modernise the coal loading process in the mines' also satisfies the definition of input service. Moreover, since the credit has been allowed by the Department on certain invoices raised by the Contractor, the Department has in-principle found the service to be eligible for credit. We also agree with the submission made by the appellant that the mode of valuation adopted by the Contractor to discharge service tax on 40% of the contract value is in accordance with law contained in Service Tax Valuation Rules and cannot be disputed while deciding credit eligibility at the appellant's end. When service tax has been levied only on 40% of the total value, it essentially means that service tax has been paid only on the service portion." ION EXCHANGE (I) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CUS. & S.T., SURAT-II- 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 302 (Tri. - Ahmd.) "6. The short issue involved for determination in the present case is : whether the appellants are eligible to credit of Service Tax paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovider of output service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products up to the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal; but excludes, - (A) service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of Section 66E of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services) in so far as they are used for - (a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or (B) services provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle, in so far as they relate to a mot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service tax paid on such construction service is eligible to credit. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law." MUSADDILAL PROJECTS LTD. Vs.COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & S.T., HYDERABAD-I -2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 401 (Tri. - Hyd.) "15. The department has denied credit alleging that all these services are for setting up of premises of the appellant and therefore not admissible. It is the case of appellant that the input services were not availed for setting up of the premises, but the services were availed only for modernization and renovation of the premises. From the table itself it is clear that the services are not per se for "construction of building" or "setting up of premises" and these are merely renovation/modernization works. The services in the table show that these are construction services for laying the flooring, Erection of Machinery, Electric Installation Works, Single Leaf Door, Installation Boom Barriers, Electrical Consultancy Charges. Since these services would fall within the category of modernization, renovation services which come within the inclusive part of the definitio....