2015 (10) TMI 2529 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - conference charges - nexus with the manufacture of final product - Held that - the disputed services on which the cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant are relating to the business activity which is evident from the documents available in the record. Further the services availed by the appellant are relating to sales promotion activities which fall under the definition of input service contained in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is found that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs CCE Jaipur-I 2015 (11) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , in an identical set of facts has allowed the cenvat benefit on the disputed services. Therefore, in view of the same the impugned order denying the benefit of cenvat credit is not legal and proper, and thus, the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of cenvat credit on conference charges by the Department, Upholding of denial by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of white cement, availed cenvat credit on input services including conference charges. The Department denied the cenvat credit on the grounds of lack of nexus with the final product's manufacture. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the disputed services for which the cenvat credit was claimed were related to the appellant's business activities, as evidenced by the available documents. These services were associated with sales promotion activities, falling within the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs CCE Jaipur-I, where a similar set of facts resulted in allowing the cenvat benefit on disputed services.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order denying the cenvat credit was not legally sound. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the denial and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member (Judicial), Mr. S.K. Mohanty.