2010 (8) TMI 197 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit on repair and maintenance service in their staff colony (residential colony of the assessees) - Held that assessees has not been able to establish any nexus between the services which are considered by them to be input service and manufacture or clearance of excisable goods and therefore the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of such services cannot be allowed - CENVAT credit of service tax is admissible but do not accede to the prayer of the Revenue for imposition of penalty as admittedly this is a case involving interpretation of provisions of law as held even in the Manikgarh Cement Work case cited supra as well as in the Maruti Suzuki case cited supra and allow the appeal of the Revenue in part

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against eligibility of credit on repair and maintenance services in staff colony.
- Requirement of nexus between services and manufacture for CENVAT credit.
- Imposition of penalty in case of interpretation of law.

Analysis:
1. Eligibility of Credit on Repair and Maintenance Services:
The appellate tribunal heard both sides and referred to a previous decision in CCE v. Manikgarh Cement Works, emphasizing the necessity of a nexus between services and the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods for extending CENVAT credit. The tribunal noted that the assessees failed to establish such a nexus in the current case, similar to the findings in the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner case. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order allowing CENVAT credit on service tax for the assessees, as the required connection between the services and the manufacturing process was not demonstrated.

2. Requirement of Nexus for CENVAT Credit:
The tribunal based its decision on the principle that a clear nexus between the services claimed as input and the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods is essential for availing CENVAT credit. Citing the Manikgarh Cement Works case and the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. case, the tribunal reiterated the importance of establishing this connection to qualify for the benefit of CENVAT credit. As the assessees could not prove the requisite link between the services and the manufacturing activities, the tribunal concluded that the CENVAT credit for the services in question could not be allowed.

3. Imposition of Penalty for Interpretation of Law:
In the context of interpreting provisions of law, the tribunal declined the Revenue's request for imposing a penalty. The tribunal highlighted that the case involved a matter of legal interpretation, as acknowledged in both the Manikgarh Cement Works case and the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. case. Given the nature of the issue as a legal interpretation rather than a deliberate violation, the tribunal decided not to impose a penalty. Thus, the tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal by setting aside the order allowing CENVAT credit but refrained from penalizing the assessees due to the legal complexity involved.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal, including the eligibility of credit on repair and maintenance services, the requirement of a nexus for CENVAT credit, and the decision on penalty imposition in cases involving interpretation of law.