2016 (8) TMI 1189 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - various input services - Held that - the various input services on which CENVAT credit has been denied has been allowed by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Courts - the services relate to the business of the appellant and also fall within the definition of input services as contained in Section 2(l) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT Credit of service tax on various input services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer, faced a show-cause notice demanding CENVAT credit irregularly availed on various services. The Addl commissioner confirmed the demand, imposed interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellant contended that the denied services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Citing broader interpretations by High Courts, the appellant argued for credit on 42 input services. The appellant referenced relevant case laws supporting their claim.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the services in question and allowed CENVAT credit on several services, including air freight charges, export-related charges, chartered engineer services, courier charges, mobile charges, training, telephone charges, travel expenses, and more. These services were deemed essential for the appellant's business and met the definition of input services under Section 2(l).

4. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and overturned the lower authorities' decision, allowing the appeal and granting CENVAT credit on the contested services. The judgment was pronounced on 30/08/2016 by S. S. Garg, the Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore.