TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r allegations, proceedings were initiated and show cause notice was issued on 10.04.2019. Thereafter, Adjudication authority as per order dated 31.12.2019 disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand with interest. Adjudication Authority also held that the raw material supplied by the customer on free of cost are treated as additional consideration received from the customer in terms of Rules 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and includable in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Thus, demand of central excise duty was also confirmed along with interest. Adjudication Authority also imposed penalty under various provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the agreement entered by the Appellant on 01.04.2010 with M/s. Micromatic Machines Tools Pvt. Ltd. (MMTPL)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cro Matic Grinding Technologies Ltd, Bangalore responsibilities. 5. Thus, it is evident that the activities are not post sale related activities. In this regard, Learned Counsel further submits that the issue is no more res integra and covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot - 2014 (11) TMI 578 - CESTAT Ahmedabad and issue considered in the present appeal was; (i) whether CENVAT credit of Input Services of Installation/ Erection of Gasifier Plant, at customer's premises, availed by the appellant is admissible as a service availed in relation to their manufacturing activity under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that as per the above decision, the Tribunal in Para 4.2 observed that:- "Appellant enters into comprehensive contracts with the customers which includes activities from Designing, Engineering, Manufacturing, Transporting to Erection, Installation and Commissioning of 'Gasifier Plant to the customer's premises. A lump-sum amount as contracted is charged by the appellant from the customers including all the el....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cturers premises. In this case even though the position of the machine in CKD condition gets transferred to the buyer when it is removed from the factory as per the contract, the question to be examined is whether such a service is related directly or indirectly to the manufacture of their goods in question. As already mentioned by me earlier, the process of erection and commissioning at the buyers premises is incidental to the manufacture of the machine and therefore the erection and commissioning services provided also can be said to be in relation to the manufacture, since the process in this case is complete only after the erection and commissioning takes place. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate, Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore, the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyers premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted. What has to be examined is whether the service provided is in or in relation to manufacture. 7. Learned Counsel submits that the issue was also considered by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that Central Excise duty had been paid on the value which included the warranty charges During the warranty period, the appellant were under obligation to provide free repair and maintenance services to the consumers, who had purchased the air conditioners from them. However, instead of providing the free repair and maintenance service directly in discharge of their obligation, the appellant roped in the dealers who provided free repair and maintenance to the consumers on their behalf and the dealers for providing this service on behalf of the appellant, received the payment from the appellant and on that amount, they paid the service tax. The point of dispute is as to whether the service provided by the dealers to the appellant is an input service and whether the appellant would be eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of the same. The service received by the appellants from their dealers is Business Auxiliary Service which has to be treated as an input service for the appellant used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products, as free warranty repair and maintenance during warranty period, has enriched the value of the goods. This issue stands decided in favour of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ST, Surat-I - 2016 (4) TMI 232-CESTAT Ahmedabad. iii. M/s. Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot - 2014 (11) TMI 578-CESTAT Ahmedabad. iv. CCE, Vapi Vs. Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT 334 (Tri.-Ahmd.). v. Case New Holland Construction Equipment (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE, Ujjain - 2021 (8) TMI 963-CESTAT New Delhi. vi. M/s. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. CCE & ST, Alwar-2018 (12) TMI 929-CESTAT New Delhi. vii. M/s. Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. Vs. CCE, Gurgaon - 2016 (3) TMI 124-CESTAT New Delhi. viii. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 819 (SC). ix. CCE Vs. Dyamic Industries Ltd. - 2014 (307) ETL 15 (Guj.). x. GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & CUS, Cochin - 2017 (49) S.T.R. 242 (Tri. - Bang.). 9. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and drew our attention to Paras 20 and 21 reproduced below:- "20. From the case records it is undisputed fact that the value of input service shown by the Appellant in respect of w....