Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Versus Shell India Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 28 Centax 190 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sanjiv Khanna, CJ., Sanjay Kumar & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. (N/P), V.C. Bharathi, Annirudh Sharma-II, Ishaan Sharma, Anilendra Kant Srivastav., Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The assessee availed Cenvat credit on input services used for modernization, renovation, and repair of its factory premise. With the amendment to Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, vide Notification No. 3/2011-C.E. (NT), dated 01-03-2011, effective 01-04-2011, the Revenue contended that credit on input services for new construction, including a new technology centre, was inadmissible. The CESTAT held in favour of the assessee, holding that Cenvat credit was claimed only on modernization and repairs, not on fresh construction, which remained eligible post-amendment. The High Court, upholding the CESTAT’s findings, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the assessee had rightfully availed Cenvat credit within the permissible scope of the amended rule. The Revenue challenged the High Court’s order by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court, after condoning the delay, found no reason to interfere, as the High Court’s decision was based on a clear factual and legal analysis. Emphasizing that credit was availed only for modernization, renovation, and repair and not for any new construction, the Court held that no substantial question of law warranted further examination. Accordingly, the SLP was dismissed, affirming the CESTAT and High Court’s ruling that the assessee had lawfully availed Cenvat credit on eligible input services.
List of Cases Cited
- Principal Commissioner v. Shell India Pvt. Ltd. — (2025) 28 Centax 189 (Kar.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
- Principal Commissioner v. Shell India Pvt. Ltd. – (2025) 27 Centax 444 (Kar.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
