Report on Lack of AC, Drinking Water and WiFi at DU Law Faculty Sought by Delhi High Court  ||  All. HC: DCP Pulled Up for Directing Further Investigation Without Leave of the Magistrate  ||  Kerala HC: Husband Acquitted u/s 304B IPC Can be Held Guilty u/s 498A IPC if Facts Permit  ||  Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023 Comes Into Effect From 10th June, 2024  ||  Karnataka HC: PIL Seeking Declaration that Temples are Not Public Authorities, Dismissed  ||  Bom. HC: Karan Johar Files Suit Against Makers of the Film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”  ||  Mad. HC: Bar Associations to Pay 15000 to 20,000 to Junior Lawyers Practicing in State  ||  Kerala High Court: E-Toilets to be Build for Flood Affected Tribal Families  ||  Amalgamation of Air Asia With Air India Express Approved by NCLT  ||  SC: Accused Refusing to Undergo Medical Examination Amounts to Non-Cooperation With Investigation    

Essar Bulk Terminal Limited vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-i - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (29 Aug 2022)

Cenvat Credit is allowed on dredging service received by the Appellant for construction of navigation channel


Service Tax

In both the appeals, the common issue involved is that whether the dredging services received by the Appellant for dredging the navigation channel leading to its jetty on which cenvat credit has been availed falls under the purview of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The lower authorities have denied the cenvat credit in respect of dredging service to the Appellant on the ground that the land of jetty is owned by GMB, the channel developed by the EBTL is not for their exclusive use by the Appellant. Present tribunal in the Appellant's own case on these issues which are involved in the present case also and by giving a detail finding, relying on some judgments held that, the dredging service received by the appellant for construction of navigation channel is an input service and the credit was allowed.

It is undisputed fact that, the entire cost charged by the service provider to the Appellant only and the same was expenditure exclusively of the Appellant. As held by the Bombay High Court in Coca Coca Cola India Pvt. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on input service, dredging service. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals allowed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved