2015 (11) TMI 1652 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - Rental service of xerox machine - Courier service - Architect Service - GTA service for transportation of building material used in construction of the factory premises - denial on account of nexus - Held that - all the four services above were used for and in relation to the business as well as the manufacturing activity of the appellant - xerox machine being used for business and also such service is indispensable there should not be denial of such Cenvat credit. So far as courier service is concerned this service of courier is used for business which is regularly availed to either dispatch the documents of business or the goods. Therefore that is also not indispensable. Thirdly the service of architect was utilized for construction of factory premises. Such service is indispensable. GTA service availed to transport the building material used in construction of the factory - denial of GTA service is inconceivable. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Cenvat credit for various services

Rental service of xerox machine:
The appellant argued that the xerox machine rental service was used for business and manufacturing activities, justifying the Cenvat credit. The service was deemed indispensable, and the appellant contended that denying the credit would be unjust.

Courier service:
The appellant asserted that the courier service was essential for business operations, regularly used to dispatch documents or goods. They argued that denying Cenvat credit for this service would be unwarranted.

Architect service:
The appellant claimed that the architect service was crucial for constructing factory premises, emphasizing its indispensability. They argued that disallowing Cenvat credit for this service would be unjustified.

GTA service for transportation:
The appellant highlighted that the GTA service was utilized to transport building materials for constructing the factory premises. They pointed out that the appellate authority had already allowed Cenvat credit for construction services, making the denial of credit for GTA service illogical.

The Revenue contended that all services were irrelevant and should not qualify for Cenvat credit. However, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found the appellant's justifications valid and undisputed by the Revenue. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, and the Cenvat credit for the disputed services was upheld.