Page 187 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., VADODARA-II 97

2020 (373) E.L.T. 97 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Shri Raju, Member (T)
SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., VADODARA-II
Final Order No. A/10250/2020-WZB/AHD, dated 24-1-2020 in Appeal
No. E/12785/2018-SM
Cenvat credit - Input services - Services used for setting up factory -
Deletion of words “setting up” from definition of input services not make
any difference in respect of impugned services - Adjudicating Authority had
not allowed benefit under that expression of definition which has been chal-
lenged by Revenue - Findings of Adjudicating Authority that said services
were covered by expression “used in or in relations to manufacture of final
products” undisturbed in Appellate order - Assessee entitled to credit of the
disputed services under expression “used in or in relation to manufacture of
final products” - Rules 2(l) and 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 4]
Appeal allowed
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 964/07/2012-CX, dated 2-4-2012 ................................................................. [Para 2]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 966/09/2012-CX, dated 18-5-2012 ............................................................... [Para 2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri H.P. Kanade, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri V.K. Lukose, Authorised Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - This appeal has been filed by M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd.
against order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the Order-in-Original
passed by Assistant Commissioner, LTU (Mumbai).
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that Revenue is seek-
ing to deny the Cenvat credit on certain services used in setting up of factory
during 17-10-2012 to 29-9-2014. Learned Counsel pointed out that the entire ar-
gument of the Revenue is based on change in the definition of the term ‘input
services’ in the Cenvat Credit Rules. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel
that omission of the words “setting up” from the definition of the input services
does not mean that the appellants are not entitled for Cenvat credit on the ser-
vices used in setting up of the factory premises. Learned Counsel pointed out
that original Adjudicating Authority had allowed the credit holding that the ser-
vices in relation to structural components which are essential parts of the equip-
ments machinery will be eligible for Cenvat credit. The Original adjudicating
authority had observed that only if the services related to construction or execu-
tion of work contract of building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or laying of
foundation of making of structures, like fabrication, foundation work for support
of capital goods only are excluded in the instant case. The Order in Original had
specifically held that the Circular No. 964/07/2012-CX., dated 2-4-2012, clarified
by Circular No. 966/09/2012-CX., dated 18-5-2012 related to boiler will also ap-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  187