Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : The Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 41114 of 2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/11/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)

Appellants are with the suppliers of fly ash. It is seen that appellants are installing PDFACS systems in the factories of thermal plants and contract for maintenance providing man power etc. is given to the respective suppliers. These suppliers do maintain such systems and transport fly ash collected at the end of thermal power units. We find that it is not the case of the department that appellants are not using the fly ash in the manufacture of cement i.e final product. The maintenance of PDFACS systems by the contractors or the appellants in terms of thermal power station is undoubtedly under round the clock collection and supply of fly ash.

Therefore, it is evident that service rendered by the contractors of the appellants are certainly in or in relation to the manufacture of cement by the appellant. As long as the services are used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of dutiable products by the appellants such services are to be deemed to be services rendered to them and the input services for that purposes.

We find that Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that the service rendered directly and used in the primary activity of the appellant or eligible to be treated as input service. We find that the case law cited by the appellant in their defence is exactly on the issue before us for consideration. The Tribunal in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. 2014 (34) STR 55 (Tri.-Del.) has held that services availed in respect of plant set up in the premises of NTPC for extraction and handling of fly ash is to be treated as service availed for procurement of inputs.

Ld. Counsel for the appellants also submits that in their own case for a later period, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the appellant in respect of Appeal No.72/2016-TRY (CEX). He also submits that there is no appeal filed by the Revenue against this order. Therefore, it is to be considered that the issue has attained finality.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031