Case Law Details
Mangalam Cement Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Goods, Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the services received by them can be assessed on the basis of the invoice received by them, i.e., service recipient and the same cannot be reassessed at their end for denying the cenvat credit, deserves to be accepted. The Apex Court in Sarvesh Refractories Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Excise and Customs 2007 (218) ELT 488, dealing with the issue of classification by the manufacturer and the supplier of the goods under a particular heading was please to hold that the appellant who is the consumer of those goods could not get the classification of the manufacturer change. Similarly, the case of Commissioner C. Ex. Vs. Manglam Cement Ltd 2017 (47) STR 349, holds that it is well settled position of law that the credit availed by an assessee cannot be denied or varied on the ground that the classification of service should have been made in a different category by the provider of service. Variation in the classification or consequent rate of payment of service tax is not possible at the end of the recipient of service. In a recent decision, the Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot 2022 (4) TMI 729, has observed that classification of service cannot be disturbed or challenged at the end of the service recipient and particularly for denial of cenvat credit. Once the classification is finalised at the end of the service provider the same cannot be altered at the end of the service recipient. We find no reason to take a contrary view as against the settled principles of law holding the field. Consequently, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant on this ground.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The appellant/ assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.06.2018 confirming the order of the adjudicating authority disallowing the CENVAT credit and confirming the demand towards its recovery.
2. The appellant is engaged inter- alia, in the manufacture of cement and clinker falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Act, 1985 and has been availing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under the provisions of Credit Rules, 2004, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The appellant had set up another unit, i.e., Manglam Grinding Unit (MGU) which was located at a distance of about 2 kms from the existing original unit on a single piece of land.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
