2018 (1) TMI 379 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI – CENVAT credit – input/input services – construction of commercial, industrial and residential premises – whether the service tax paid on Works Contract Services, Project Management and Architectural Professional Services can be considered as input services for the appellant when these services are used for construction of hotel? – Held that: – the adjudicating authority was in error to rely upon the Board Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 04.01.2008 in as much, the definition of input services during the relevant period does not bar availment of CENVAT credit all input services.
–
Input services includes the services used in relation to settingup, modernization, renovation of premises of provider of output services – In the case in hand, the definition is reproduced as above categorically will apply and the clarification given by the Board in CBEC Circular dated 04.01.2008 is going beyond the definition.
–
It is not disputed that jett
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ocate- for the appellant Shri. G.S.Dhillion, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for denial of cenvat on various input/input services. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is builder and engaged in the activity of construction of commercial, industrial and residential premises and thereafter these premises were let out by the appellant. The appellant availed the services of construction for these premises prior to 01.04.2011 and availed cenvat credit on the same but utilised during the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 for payment of service tax under the category of Renting of 'Immovable Service'. The revenue issued the show cause notice to the appellant to deny cenvat credit on the input services availed by them for construction of the premises which are immovable in nature, therefore, the cenvat credit sought to be denied as these services are not availed by the appellant for construction of any g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
immovable property and looses character of goods, therefore, they are not entitled to avail cenvat credit is not correct as held by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) ltd. C.M.A nos.633-635/2009, wherein, it has been held that any steel items used for fabrication of supports structure which is embedded to earth and used for installation of plant & machinery is entitled for cenvat credit, therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sai Sahmita Storages (P) ltd. reported in 2011 (23) STR 341 (AP) to say that the facts of the case are similar to the said case and in the said case the Hon ble High Court held that they are entitled to avail cenvat credit. He also took support of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lemon Tree Hotel reported in 2017 (63) GST 364, therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 3. On the o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
is that the premises which have been let out by the appellant are immovable property, therefore, they are looses the identity of the goods, therefore, any input or services used for construction of this premises are not entitled for cenvat credit. The argument advanced by the ld. AR apart from the allegation made in the show cause notice are not relevant to the facts of this case. Further, I find that all these input/input service in question have been availed by the appellant prior to 01.04.2011 but the same has been utilised for payment of service tax after 01.04.2011. In cenvat credit Rules, 2004, there is no bar of utilisation of cenvat credit availed on any service or inputs received by the assessee prior to 01.04.2011 but the cenvat credit is not admissible after 01.04.2011. Moreover, it is not the case of the Revenue. In fact, the appellant has availed cenvat credit all these service/inputs prior 01.04.2011 but the same has been utilised after 01.04.2011, therefore, the availmen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
for the demand of the CENVAT credit availed by the appellants along with interest and also for imposition of penalties. One of the allegations in the show cause notices was also that the invoices issued by the service providers were not in the name of appellants the CENVAT credit was availed prior to registration. Both the appellants contested the show cause notice on merits. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant and confirmed demands raised along with interest and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty. The adjudicating authority in both the orders decided the issue against the appellant on the ground that they could not availed CENVAT credit on the input services which are used for construction activity and did not decide the other issues i.e., the invoices being not in the name of the appellant and CENVAT credit was availed prior to registration. And this Tribunal observed as under: 5. On careful
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
into use for rendering taxable output services. We find that the adjudicating authority was in error to rely upon the Board Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 04.01.2008 in as much, the definition of input services during the relevant period does not bar availment of CENVAT credit all input services. In order to appreciate correct position of law, the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as was during the relevant period of these cases is reproduced: input service means any service,- (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
iance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd., (supra), holding that these services were utilized for brining into existence an immovable property. The Bench after considering the definition of input services, held that the provisions of Section 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 very clearly indicate eligibility to avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on these services. 7. Views of the Tribunal have been fortified by decision of the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd., (supra) the ratio is in paragraph No. 7, 8 & 9 which we with respect reproduce: 7. It is not disputed that jetty was constructed and input credit was claimed on cement and steel. The aforesaid definition of Rule 2(k) was applicable and Explanation 2 did not provide that cement and steel would not be eligible for input credit. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant is not manufacturer and, therefore, the provisions of Explanation 2 of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
apply only to the factory or manufacturer and would not apply to the service provider. According to him, either before the amendment made in the year 2009 or thereafter, the appellant was neither factory nor manufacturer and he has only constructed jetty by use of cement and steel for which he was entitled for input credit as jetty was constructed by the contractor, but the jetty is situated within the port area and the appellant is a service provider. According to the appellant, his case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II v. Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Limited, 2011 (270) E.L.T. 33 (A.P.) = 2011 (23) S.T.R. 341 (A.P.) wherein in Paragraph 7, it has been clearly held that a plain reading of the definition of Rule 2(k) would demonstrate that all the goods used in relation to manufacture of final product or for any other purpose used by a provider of taxable service for providing an
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rly mentions intention in the notification itself and seeks to clarify existing provision. Even, if the new provision is added then it will be new amendment and cannot be treated to be clarification of particular thing or goods and/or input and as such, the amendment could operate only prospectively. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises as the Larger Bench of the Tribunal used the expression that intention behind amendment was to clarify. The coverage under the input from where this intention has been gathered by the Tribunal has not been mentioned in the judgment. There is no material to support that there was any legislative intent to clarify any existing provision. For the same reason, as mentioned above, the decision of the Apex Court in Sangam Spinners Limited v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 408 = 2011 (266) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. 9. Mr. Ravani has also vehem
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
empted, the appellant would not be entitled for input credit. The view taken contrary by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraphs of the judgment of the Honble High Court of Gujarat the issue avaliment of CENVAT credit on the input services which are used for brining into existence of immovable property are also eligible for availment of CENVAT credit. 9. In view of the foregoing, and the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. 8. As this Tribunal after examining the issue held that the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit. Relying on the decision of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. – 2015 (39) STR 726 (Guj.) wherein, it was held that any input/input service availed cenvat credit for construction of a building which have been let out
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =