AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was issued to the appellant alleging that: (i) The appellant has availed and utilized Cenvat credit of service tax paid on services related to building construction i.e. fabrication of roof and walls of the factory building, post manufacturing activity such as sludge removal and invoices which do not bear the address of the appellant. (ii) That the appellant has received manpower supply services from various service providers during the period of October,2014 to June, 2017 and has not discharged service tax under reverse charge mechanism. (iii) That the appellant had received legal consultancy services from Advocates and had incurred expenses on fees paid to various government departments on which service tax is payable under reverse charge mechanism. 3. After following due process, the adjudicating authority upheld the demand of service tax as well as credit allegedly wrongly availed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appellant. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(45) GSTL- 184 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Abdur Pvt.Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi-2017 (5) GSTL 334 (Tri.-Del.) 8. Ld. Counsel further submits that the appellant received services from Chhatrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering works with regard to repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. But audit staff wrongly presumed that the said activity was used for building structure and therefore the same is excluded from the definition of input service and the credit was not admissible. Ld. Counsel submits that in fact the appellant has availed services on account of repair and maintenance of plant and machinery and the Revenue without basis has held same services as construction of building structure. No statement of the appellant was recorded in this regard to clarify the exact position. He also submits that the appellant received services from M/s. Sai Enterprises which was assigned job worker of coal feeding in boilers. M/s. Sai Enterprises raised invoices and collected service tax on 100% value but the Revenue presumed that the said services qualified as manpower supply services whereas M/s.Sai Enterprises has provided services of coal feeding in boilers. No manpower supply service has been pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Sai Engineering Works are related to fabrication/ construction of plant building and the said service has been specifically excluded as per clause (A) (a) of exclusion clause to the definition of input service as provided under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004. She also submits that in reply to audit objection, the appellant could not explain anything with regard to this objection raised by the department and only submitted that they are contesting the same. 14. Ld. DR placed on record various invoices issued by the Chhtrapati Engineering which clearly mentioned service provided as follows: "Carry of various fabrication works for pre-coated sheet removing and Re-fixing." 15. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision in the case of Forbes Marshall Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Pune-2010 (258) ELT 571. 16. With regard to input service of manpower supply service received from M/s. Sai Enterprises and M/s. JNV Enterprises, Ld. DR submits that the manpower supply services are taxable and tax is to be paid by service recipient under reverse charge mechanism. She also submits that the appellant has not submitted anything specifically regarding service received from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portation and clearance of waste is an activity of the appellant's manufacturing business. The service availed by the appellant is an integral part of the manufacturing process and hence the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit. 22. Coming to the next input service which was denied on the ground that the invoices not bearing registered address of the appellant and only having the address of the head office at Kolkata. In this regard, I find that the services were availed in Baddi but inadvertently address of the head office was mentioned in the invoice. The Tribunal has been consistently holding that the Cenvat credit/substantial benefit cannot be denied on technical/procedural lapse as held by the Tribunal in the case of Rajender Kumar & Associates (supra) and Abdur Pvt.Ltd. (supra). 23. In view of these decisions, I find that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on the input service received from D.K.Chajjar & Co. 24. With regard to the services received from Chhtrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering Works, I find that the stand of the department is that the said activity was used for building structure whereas the stand of the appellant is that these services were a....