2011 (4) TMI 728 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit on inputs - Business auxiliary services - Since, the M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a registered service provider and is a Del credere consignment agent and during the course of advertising and publicizing the product the assessee enlisted the services of a mandap keeper which is an input service - This confirms to the definition of input service as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - find that in the show cause itself the demand was raised on the basis of invoice issued by Bhagwati Banquets & Hotel Ltd., Ahmedabad which is an adequate proof of providing mandap keeper service - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to input service credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Time-barred show cause notice.
3. Nexus between input and output service for availing credit.

Entitlement to input service credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appeal involved M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd., a service provider availing credit of mandap keeper services. The original adjudicating authority allowed the input credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision citing a lack of nexus between input and output service. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was time-barred and relied on legal precedents such as the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Tribunal in favor of considering such activities as input services. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions and facts, found that the mandap keeper service enlisted by the assessee qualifies as an input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law supporting this interpretation and upheld the appeal, concluding that the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was not sustainable.

Time-barred show cause notice:
The appellant contended that the show cause notice was issued after a period exceeding two years, raising the issue of timeliness. However, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this aspect in its analysis, focusing instead on the substantive issue of input service credit eligibility under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the time-barred notice, the Tribunal's decision primarily centered on the interpretation of the law and the nexus between the input and output services for claiming credit.

Nexus between input and output service for availing credit:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had emphasized the necessity of a clear nexus between input and output services for allowing the credit. The appellant's failure to provide an invoice demonstrating the utilization of the mandap keeper service for promoting the business of a Del credere agent was a key factor in the Commissioner's decision. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning and found that the mandap keeper service enlisted by the appellant indeed qualified as an input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the definition of input service and relevant case law precedents, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and the rejection of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, after a detailed analysis of the contentions, facts, and legal precedents, allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the mandap keeper service availed by the appellant qualified as an input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) decision unsustainable and ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of the nexus between input and output services for claiming credit under the relevant legal framework.