2015 (3) TMI 1186 - AT - Service Tax

Input service distributor (ISD) - The basic principle of Cenvat credit being to avoid cascading effect genuine credit earned by one unit is not disallowed for set off against liability of other in absence of any prohibition thereto by law. This can be appreciated from the ratio laid down by Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd. However a word of caution may be stated that the manner of distribution of credit should not be contrary to Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the allowance of credit earned by one unit to be availed by another unit of the same company.
2. Interpretation of Cenvat credit rules and the prohibition of credit distribution.
3. Application of the definition of input service, input service provider, and input service distributor.
4. Compliance with Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the distribution of credit by an input service distributor.

Analysis:
The dispute in the appeal revolves around the allowance of credit earned by one unit to be utilized by another unit of the same company. The appellant argues that there is no prohibition on legitimately earned credit being transferred between units, citing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Revenue, on the other hand, supports the lower authorities' decision. The key principle is to avoid the cascading effect of taxes, and genuine credits earned by one unit should not be disallowed for set off against another unit's liability unless prohibited by law.

The interpretation of the Cenvat credit rules is crucial in this case. The judgment emphasizes that the manner of credit distribution should not violate Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The definition of input service, input service provider, and input service distributor under Rule 2 of the Rules is examined to determine the eligibility and distribution of credit within a manufacturer's multiple units.

Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 outlines the conditions for the distribution of credit by an input service distributor. The rule specifies limitations on credit distribution, ensuring that the credit does not exceed the amount of service tax paid and that credit attributable to services used in units engaged in exempted activities is not distributed. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with these rules for lawful credit distribution.

The judgment further references a circular issued by the Board clarifying the limitations on credit distribution by an input service distributor. The circular reinforces the conditions set out in Rule 7 and emphasizes the manufacturer's requirement to register as an input service distributor to distribute credits appropriately. Ultimately, the tribunal upholds the legality of the distribution of credit in this case, dismissing any legal infirmity and allowing the appeal based on the compliance with relevant rules and regulations.