Case nº Ruling No. AAR/44/ST/22/2016 in Application No. AAR/44/ST/28/2015 of AAR Cases, July 15, 2016 (case In Re: Kochi Salem Pipeline Pvt. Ltd. Vs)
| Judge | For Appellant: Shri Kuryan Thomas, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorised Representative |
| President | V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman, Shri S.S. Rana and R.S. Shukla, Members |
| Resolution Date | July 15, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | AAR Cases |
|
|
Ruling: V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Heard Shri Kuryan Thomas, Advocate for the applicant and Sh. Ranjan Khanna for the department. This matter is covered by our previous ruling reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 393 (A.A.R.). In that case we had the occasion to consider the input services and whether Cenvat credit can be taken on input services. We had held that Cenvat credit can be taken for input services. The matter is absolutely similar if not identical to the questions that we have answered in that ruling. We, accordingly hold that the applicant would be entitled to the expenses meant for input services and would be entitled to the Cenvat credit only in respect of the input services. 2. One more argument was made by Shri Khanna to the effect that in the cases of M/s. Bharati Airtel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, Bombay High Court and also Indus Tower (Tribunal) Larger Bench - 2016-TIOL-539 = 2016 (42) S.T.R. 249 (Tribunal-LB), which has been decided by this Tribunal. The view was taken that the inputs which are embedded to earth are not the goods and hence they cannot become capital goods. Sh. Khanna reiterates that the analogy is applicable to this matter also as pipeline is embedded and therefore, cannot be the input. It is pointed out that in those cases the term "input services" was not for consideration, the term for consideration was only "input". We are quite convinced that input is different from input service. This... |
To continue reading
Request your trial