2010 (11) TMI 356 - AT - Service Tax

Credit of service tax paid - The appellants are manufacturing pharmaceutical ingredients as well as formulations - Appellants have also sold DEPB scrips not utilized by them through a commission agent - The appellants are seeking credit of service tax paid on the services received from the commission agent for selling DEPB scips against excise duty payable on pharmaceutical ingredients and formulations manufactured by them. In the case of CCE Chennai v. Sundaram Brake Linings this Bench has examined in great detail the tests required for entitlement to credit of tax paid on input service for paying excise duty on manufactured goods. Held that it is clear that no such nexus exists between the service availed for selling DEPB scrips and the manufacture of pharmaceutical products - Hence the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Credit of service tax on services received from commission agent for selling DEPB scrips against excise duty on pharmaceutical goods.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical ingredients and formulations, sought credit of service tax paid on services received from a commission agent for selling DEPB scrips against excise duty on their manufactured goods. The authorities denied the credit, stating the service related to DEPB scrips sale did not qualify as an input service for manufacturing pharmaceutical goods. The appellant's advocate argued that the money from DEPB scrip sales was used to purchase raw materials, citing relevant case laws to support the claim.

The department's representative contended that there was no direct link between DEPB scrip sales and the manufacture of pharmaceutical goods, asserting that these scrips were unrelated to raw material procurement. The Tribunal considered both arguments, emphasizing that an input service must be connected to the manufacturing process to claim tax credit on excisable goods. The Tribunal found the appellant's argument tenuous, stating that funds from DEPB scrip sales could be used for various purposes unrelated to manufacturing. The Tribunal highlighted that the sale of DEPB scrips constituted a separate business activity, distinct from manufacturing, and lacked a nexus with the manufacturing process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced a detailed order in a previous case, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a nexus between the service and the business conducted to avail of cenvat credit, in line with Supreme Court decisions. Citing a Bombay High Court case, the Tribunal reiterated the requirement for a clear connection between the service availed and the business activities. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that no such nexus existed between the service of selling DEPB scrips and the pharmaceutical manufacturing activities. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to deny the credit of service tax on the input service, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a direct link between the service of selling DEPB scrips and the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, as required for claiming tax credit on excisable goods. The judgment underscored the importance of establishing a clear nexus between services availed and business activities to qualify for cenvat credit, in line with relevant legal precedents.