Basf India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 125-2012 dated 05/03/2012 passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

BASF INDIA LTD SURATHKAL BAJPE ROAD, BALA VILLAGE, VIA KATIPALLA MANGALORE 575030 Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax MANGALORE NULL 7TH FLOOR...TRADE CENTRE, BUNTS HOSTEL RD., MANGALORE, - 575003 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri B. Raghavendra, Advocate LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE - 560009 KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 24/06/2015

Date of Decision: 24/06/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21439 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants have been denied the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the services availed by them for construction of compound wall, construction of ramp, construction of motorcycle parking shed and administrative block, parking area/storm water drain and also in respect of painting work done on various pipes and machineries installed in the factory. The total denial of the CENVAT credit is to the tune of Rs.13,72,619/- along with interest and imposition of penalty during the period December 2007 to September 2009. I find that the issue as to whether services availed for construction of factory as also of other areas within the factory was the subject matter of various decisions. The said activities were specifically included in the definition of input services and were taken out only w.e.f. 01/04/2011.

2. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune-II Vs. Raymond Zambaiti Pvt. Ltd. [2010(18) STR 734 (Tri. Mumbai)] and Suzuki Motorcycle (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon [2011(267) ELT 216 (Tri. Delhi)] has held that the activities relating to the construction of compound wall and the other areas within the factory are CENVATable input services. Similarly in the case of U.G. Sugar & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2011(272) ELT 383 (Tri. Del.)], the paints used for painting the pipes and machines inside the factor premises have been held to be CENVATable inputs.

3. In the light of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay application also gets disposed of.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja..

3