Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

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

MANU/CS/0220/2022

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.

Tags : CENVAT CREDIT   INPUT SERVICE   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved