2011 (3) TMI 610 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Scrutiny - Cenvat credit - The dispute relates to services rendered by the respondents to their customers utilizing engineering firms as sub-contractors - Mere engagement of sub-contracts for some of the activities does not take away the role of respondents as service provider to their ultimate clients - it emerges that the respondents are rendering services to their ultimate customers and while rendering the said service they are receiving services from the engineering firms appointed by them - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules permit a manufacturer or a service provider to take credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input service - The CENVAT credit is a kind of common kitty into which (a) credit of CVD paid on imported goods (if any) is taken; (b) credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods procured locally from the domestic market is taken; and (c) credit of service tax paid on services utilised taken - There is no violation in utilizing the credit from the common kitty for payment of excise duty on goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents and for paying service tax on the services provided by the respondents - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of credit for repair services rendered at customers' site.
2. Utilization of service tax credit for payment of excise duty.

Eligibility of Credit for Repair Services Rendered at Customers' Site:
The case involved an appeal by the department against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the eligibility of credit for repair services undertaken at customers' sites by engineering firms appointed by the respondents. The department contended that since the repair services were not directly rendered by the respondents, the credit of service tax paid by the engineering firms should not be allowed. The Original Authority upheld this view, stating that the engineering firms solely performed the repair services. However, the respondents argued that the services provided by the engineering firms were integral to the overall services rendered to the ultimate customers. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and concluded that the respondents, as service providers, were responsible for ensuring the quality of services provided to customers, even if sub-contractors were engaged for certain activities. The Tribunal held that the service charges paid by the respondents to the engineering firms constituted payment for services received, making the service tax credit rightfully admissible, as ruled by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Utilization of Service Tax Credit for Payment of Excise Duty:
The second issue addressed in the judgment concerned the utilization of service tax credit by the respondents for payment of excise duty on goods manufactured and cleared by them. The department objected to this practice, arguing that the respondents, acting as both manufacturers and service providers, should maintain separate CENVAT credit accounts. However, the Tribunal referred to Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which allows manufacturers or service providers to take credit of duty paid on inputs and service tax paid on input services. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no requirement for separate credit accounts when an entity operates as both a manufacturer and a service provider. Additionally, Rule 3(4) specifies the manner of credit utilization, permitting the use of the common CENVAT credit for excise duty on manufactured goods and service tax on provided services. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the objection raised by the department, affirming the respondents' right to utilize the service tax credit for excise duty payment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the department's appeal lacking merit on both issues and rejected it accordingly.