TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) storage tank and (b) inputs used for fabrication, installation and erection of storage tank. A small demand has also been made for taking credit in respect of electrode. On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority has examined the scope of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 (CCR), especially Rule 2(a) and felt that the credit taken by them in respect of Cryogenic Storage Tank is not permissible because the said credit is only admissible if the said storage tank is used in the factory of manufacture of excisable goods, whereas, in this case, the appellant have not installed the said Cryogenic Tanks in their own factory for manufacture of excisable goods, hence not eligible. In so far as the issue of taking credit in respect of SS Coils & Sheets and plates which have been used for erection/installation of storage tank in the premises of their client and attached to earth, as also Cenvat Credit on items like bars and cement which have been used for laying the foundation for erection of storage tanks, it was held that since the storage tanks which were fabricated and erected at site, are immovable property and hence cannot be considered as goods and hence they are neither e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they are eligible to take credit on such items without any distinction of their being input or capital goods for providing output service: i) Applied Solar Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax (Audit-II), New Delhi [2023 (70) GSTL 378 (Tri-Del) / 2023 (3) Centax 66 (Tri-Del)]. ii) Manglam Cement Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2018 (360) ELT 737 (Tri-LB)] iii) RAV S. Steels Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur [2018 (363) ELT 468 (Tri-Hyd)] relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of SLR Steels Ltd., [2012 (280) ELT 176 (Kar)] and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd., [2017 (349) ELT 133 (Mad)]. 5. Learned AR, on the other hand, pointed out that this aspect has not been clarified and the adjudicating authority has clearly held that they have not been able to establish that they were also service providers. Thus, while, in principle, the credit in respect of capital goods can be allowed, if used for providing output service, however, certain facts need to be checked before this argument is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut service and not for use in the factory of appellant for manufacture, which has been a ground for confirming the demand. We find that the appellants are not only manufacturer of the industrial gas but they are also having Service Tax registration as is evident from the various ST-3 returns being filed and also they were providing certain services including supply of tangible goods, erection and commissioning service etc. There is no denial that Cryogenic Tank, per se, is a capital good and a capital good used for providing taxable service i.e. supply of tangible goods is an eligible capital good unless it is specifically excluded from the purview of the capital goods. We do not find any such exclusion in respect of storage tank. We also find that Department has clearly issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.05.2014 for non-payment of Service Tax on supply of tangible goods service by the appellant. Thus, to that extent, they will be eligible for taking credit in respect of Cryogenic Tank, which is a capital goods, used for providing output service i.e., supply of tangible goods. 8. In so far as credit on SS Coils, Sheets and Plates used for fabrication and installation of said sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a foundation, but the same can be moved or dismantled at the end of contract period. The materials have been used for fabrication of such storage tanks and also for erection and commissioning of such tanks. Therefore, when they are providing the output services of supply of tangible goods and as also erection/commissioning service, such SS items will also be eligible as inputs used for providing output service. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2025 (391) ELT 3 (SC)], inter alia, examined the issue as to whether mobile service provider can take credit of duty paid on mobile towers and pre-fabricated buildings attached to earth. After examining the scope of Rule 2(a)(A) of Rule 2(k) of CCR in relation to eligibility of credit in respect of mobile towers, parts and PFB, it was held that they are goods and will be eligible for credit as "input" used for providing output service. Therefore, in view of discussion above, the demand on this ground will also not sustain. 10. In so far as, demand on account of cement and bars used for erection of storage tanks, we do not find any reason to interfere with the fi....