Page 188 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

98 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

ply to all equipments/machinery. The Order-in-Original had also observed that
the said services are also covered by the expression in the ‘means’ part of the def-
inition of input service, under the expression “in or in relation to manufacture of
final product” and hence, the omission of the expression “in relation to setting
up of factory” does not make any difference on admissibility of Cenvat credit.
2.1 Learned Counsel pointed out that the impugned order solely relies
on the exclusion of words ‘setting up’ from the definition and does not look into
the expression “used in or in relation to manufacture of final products” and,
therefore, is bad in law and needs to set aside.
3. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the impugned order.
4. I have gone through rival submissions. I find that the original adju-
dicating authority has clearly held that the services in dispute are covered by the
expression used in or in relation to manufacture of final products and, therefore,
even if the words ‘setting up’ are deleted from the definition of input services, it
makes no difference. I also find that the impugned order does not dispute the
finding of the Original Adjudicating Authority that the services are covered by
the expression “used in or relation to manufacture of final product”. The im-
pugned order solely relied on the omission of words ‘setting up’ from the defini-
tion of input services. It is seen that the Original Adjudicating Authority had not
allowed the benefit under that expression of the definition which has been chal-
lenged by Revenue. In these circumstances I find that the findings of the Original
Adjudicating Authority that the said services are covered by the expression used
in or in relations to manufacture of final products remains undisturbed by the
impugned order. Consequently, the appellant remains entitled to Cenvat credit
of the disputed services under the expression “used in or in relation to manufac-
ture of final products”. The appeal is, consequently, allowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 24-1-2020)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 98 (Tri. - Hyd.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, HYDERABAD
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and P. Venkata Subba Rao,
Member (T)
VENKATESWARA INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS P. LTD.
Versus
C.C.E., C. & S.T., HYDERABAD-III
C.C.E.,C.&S.T.,HYDERABAD-III
Final Order Nos. A/30549-30553/2019, dated 4-6-2019 in Appeal
Nos. E/1400-1404/2011
Cable Filling Compound (CFC) and Cable Cleaning Compound (CCC)
- Essential property of CFC is sealant or insulation property required for pre-
vention for water seepage with additional qualities of lubricating preparation/
anti-rust/anti-frozen preparation as per Chartered Engineer’s certificate -
Product in question not classifiable as lubricating preparation but as a miscel-
laneous chemical under Chapter Heading 3823 Central Excise Tariff - Accord-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  188