SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

Petro Araldite Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (04 Mar 2024)

Any activity which is directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture would be eligible for credit

MANU/CC/0068/2024

Excise

The appellant is engaged in manufacture of "Epoxy Resins and Hardeners" and holds Central Excise registration. During the course of verification of their records, it was noticed by the Department that, they have availed cenvat credit issued on invoices / debit notes issued by Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. (TPL) under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). It was observed that, there was no Effluent Treatment Plant available in the Appellant's factory and the effluent water was sent to TPL for treatment and the treated water was let out into the sea and service charges for the effluent treatment was collected from the appellant under BAS.

The Appellant availed service tax credit on such service tax paid by them. On being pointed out, the appellant reversed the credit to the tune of Rs.60,61,438 under protest; But, however, did not pay the appropriate interest on the same. Show cause notice dt. 5.6.2012 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand interest and for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of interest of Rs.4,68,499 and imposed penalty of Rs.60,61,438. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. The issue is whether the appellant is eligible for the credit of service tax paid on charges collected for treatment by TPL.

Undisputedly, the effluent treatment of the waste water (hazardous waste) is necessary in order to manufacture the goods. The Appellant cannot continue manufacturing of the goods without taking steps for effluent treatment of the waste. The department has denied the credit alleging that, the activity carried out by the appellant is an activity which is after the manufacture of goods. The decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi is with regard to the eligibility of credit availed on inputs and not on input services. It is not possible for the assessee to avail all types of input services within the factory premises. The decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of this case.

The activity of waste water treatment is part of manufacturing activity and any activity which is directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture would be eligible for credit. The credit has been denied without valid reasons. The Appellant is eligible for credit. The impugned order disallowing the credit as well as confirming the demand and imposing penalty is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   PENALTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved