M\/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 513 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 5-3-2019
Appeal No. E\/41049\/2018 – Final Order No. 40404\/2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri K. Pattabiraman, Auth. Rep. for the Appellant
\nMs. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of steel and aluminium materials and are also availing the facility of CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input services. During the course of verification of records, it was noticed that they had availed input service tax credit<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ing, aluminum form monolithic flooring, fencing, laying of gate post etc. were done. These are not in the nature of works contract service but only fall under repair and maintenance service as well as modernization of the factory. Such activities fall within the definition of input service. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 41111 to 41113\/2018 dated 16.4.2018 and argued that for the earlier period, the Tribunal on very same set of facts had allowed the credit. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ks contract service which is in the nature of construction of civil structure, part thereof or laying of foundation or support structure for capital goods. The works undertaken by the appellant does not fall under this category. Further, the inclusion part of the definition allows service in the nature of repair and maintenance as well as modernization of factory \/ premises. Therefore, I am of the view that the services availed are in the nature of repair and maintenance \/ modernization and are eligible for credit. In the appellant's own case for the earlier period, the Tribunal has allowed the credit. In such circumstances, there is no ground to disallow the credit. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequenti<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise PuducherryCentral Excise2019 (3) TMI 513 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 5-3-2019Appeal No. E\/41049\/2018 – Final Order No. 40404\/2019Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri K. Pattabiraman, Auth. Rep. for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the … Continue reading “M\/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that the definition of input service excludes works contract service. The works done are in the nature of flooring etc. Such works wou<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n