2010 (6) TMI 536 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - Disallowed the Cenvat credit being service tax paid respectively on Construction Service and other services such as Telephone, GTA etc. - The credit relating to Construction Service was incurred by the appellants for getting building to extend the factory constructed in the premises - Service tax was incurred on Telephone Service and GTA Service only in relation to the business activities of the appellants - There is no dispute that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic Medicines - The learned Consultant assures to keep the disputed credit in the Cenvat Accounts pending decision in the appeal - Thus, the stay petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Cenvat credit on 'Construction Service' and other services, liability to pay interest, imposition of penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, entitlement to credit for services related to business activities, location of buildings constructed affecting credit eligibility.

In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dealt with the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 4,56,113 and Rs. 39,549 for 'Construction Service' and other services like Telephone, GTA, etc., during the period from August 2007 to March 2008. The Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000 under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, while also holding the appellants liable to pay interest under Rule 14 of the same rules. The appellants, represented by a consultant, contended that they were entitled to the credit for the services in question, emphasizing that the construction service was for extending the factory premises and the other services were related to their business activities of manufacturing Ayurvedic Medicines under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff.

The learned consultant for the appellants moved an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the disallowed amounts, assuring to keep the disputed credit in the Cenvat Accounts pending the appeal's decision. On the other hand, the JDR representing the respondent argued that since the buildings constructed were situated outside the factory premises, the assessee was not eligible for the credit on service tax incurred for the construction. He maintained that the impugned order was legally sound. After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal ordered that the appellants should maintain the disallowed credit in their Cenvat accounts until the appeal's final disposal, thereby disposing of the stay petition.

The Tribunal's decision to uphold the disallowance of Cenvat credit for 'Construction Service' and other services, while directing the appellants to retain the disputed credit in their Cenvat accounts pending the appeal's outcome, reflects a balanced approach to the issue. The contrasting arguments regarding the eligibility for credit based on the location of the constructed buildings outside the factory premises demonstrate the complexity involved in determining credit entitlement under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's ruling provides clarity on the procedural aspect of maintaining the disputed credit during the appeal process, ensuring compliance with the relevant regulations.