2026 (3) TMI 971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 29.09.2015 has dismissed its Appeal by upholding the denial of input service credit. 2. Shri R. Parthasarathy, ld. Consultant appeared for the Appellant and Smt. O.M. Reena, ld. Additional Commissioner appeared for the Revenue, heard both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities and also considered the judicial precedents relied upon during the course of arguments. 3. Brief undisputed facts as could be gathered from the impugned order are that it appears that the Internal Audit Group of the LTU visited the Assessee between 10.12.2014 and 14.02.2014 for audit of accounts and they appear to have found that the Assessee's unit at Kalaikali are having captive limestone mines in various places like Devarmalai, Dholipatti, e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oading and transporting waste and rejects cannot be treated as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) ibid. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is, 'whether the transporting reject/waste materials from the mines to the dumping yards is an 'input service' and the Appellant is eligible for availing cenvat credit on the above service?' 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, the Commissioner has rejected the claim of the Appellant for three reasons viz. (i) there was no nexus between the transporting of reject and the manufacturing activity, (ii) transporting of rejects is unconnected with the activity of manufacturing of cement and (iii) transporting of rejects is not an a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aside by a higher judicial fora, on an Appeal filed by the Revenue and nor could the Commissioner bring on record any distinguishing facts. Hence, at the outset, we are of the view that the interpretation sought to be adopted in the impugned order is totally incorrect and unsustainable in law. We say so also for the reason that the Commissioner is trying to rely on a totally unconnected order in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. supra and the issues of which are totally different. 6. The case of the Appellant is that the removal of overburden/waste/reject and loading the same and transporting the same to the dump yard is a technical requirement of the extraction of limestone which is available underneath such overburden/waste/ and he....