Page 216 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

118 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
36. In view of the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in this petition
and dismiss the same along with the pending application.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 118 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Shri Raju, Member (T)
THERMAX LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., VADODARA
Final Order No. A/10251/2019-WZB/AHD, dated 8-2-2019 in Appeal
No. E/11542/2018-SM
Cenvat credit - Input services - Erection, Commissioning and Installa-
tion services - Exclusion clause in definition of input services confined to con-
struction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a
part thereof or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of
capital goods - Said exclusion does not cover Erection, Commissioning and
Installation service - Credit admissible - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
[paras 4, 5]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Amit Mishra, Joint Commissioner (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - This appeal has been filed by M/s. Thermax Limited against
denial of Cenvat credit on Erection, Commissioning and Installation services uti-
lized in respect of construction of new shed in their factory premises.
2. Ld. Counsel pointed out that the services obtained is of Erection
Commissioning and Installation service and has been used for construction of
shed in their factory premises. He argued that the exclusion clause to clause 2(l),
relating to definition of Input Service, includes the service portion in the execu-
tion of a works contract and construction services including service of construc-
tion or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part
thereof or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital
goods. In the instant case, services received by the appellant is mainly Erection,
Commissioning and Installation service, which is not a specified service in the
exclusive clause and hence, Ld. Counsel claimed that credit of the same cannot
be denied.
3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. He pointed out that servicers
are used for construction of shed and laying of foundation, etc. and the credit has
been correctly denied to the appellant.
4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that exclusion
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  280