Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Jindal Pipes Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Final Order No. 1491 OF 2012 - SM (BR)
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/11/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (604) CESTAT Delhi (193)

CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH

Commissioner of Central Excise

Versus

Jindal Pipes Ltd.

FINAL ORDER NO. 1491 OF 2012 – SM (BR)

APPEAL NO. E/3338 OF 2010-SM

NOVEMBER 5, 2012

ORDER

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the respondents appeal in respect of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 5,074 availed on dismantling of existing structure in the factory, Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. After hearing both the sides, I find that Commissioner has allowed the appeal observing as under:-

5.4″A perusal of the definition of ‘input service’ given above reveals that the inclusive part of the definition 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. The appellant has claimed that the said service falls under the service of ‘renovation’.

5.5 Burton’s Legal Thesaurus -2007 by William Commissioner Burton defines the term of ‘renovate’ as under:-

Renovate verb- convert, make new, rebuild, recondition, reconstitute, remake, repair, replace, etc. Collins Thesaurus of the English Language 2nd Edition 2002 defines the term as under:-

Renovate verb- restore, repair, refurbish, renew, recreate, remodel, reconstitute, recondition etc.

5.6 In view of the definition of input service given under rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the term “renovate” defined in the above quoted-references, I am of the view that the findings of the adjudicating authority are not sustainable because renovation is done by dismantling the existing structure either in part or full. Hence, the Cenvat credit is admissible to the appellant of the service tax paid by them on the service of ‘dismantling’ as the same is duly covered under the definition of input service.”

3. Apart from the fact that the amount of credit involved is Rs. 5,074, I find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly renovation involves dismantling of the existing structure on which a new structure can be erected. I find no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.

More Under Excise Duty

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (4040)
Type : Judiciary (9823)
Tags : Cestat judgments (794)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *