2012 (10) TMI 335 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - utilization for payment of duty of excise as well as payment of service tax - Held that - No need for one to one co-relation of CENVAT credit availed on input services towards payment of output services.- As decided in case of FORBES MARSHALL PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, FUNE 2010 (6) TMI 230 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , there is no provision in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for segregation of input services utilized in manufacture or to provide output service. - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge of impugned order for denial of utilization of CENVAT credit for excise duty payment on final product and output service.
- Maintenance of separate account for input/input services availed for providing output services.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellants challenged the impugned order denying the utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of excise duty on the final product and output service. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing transmission towers and providing related services, availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services. The department contended that the appellants did not maintain a separate account for inputs used in manufacturing the final product and providing output services, hence not entitled to the input service credit. A show-cause notice was issued demanding service tax on credits earned and CENVAT credit taken. The appellants appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: The crux of the matter revolved around the requirement of maintaining a separate account for input/input services utilized for providing output services. Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, was cited, specifying the utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax on output services. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Forbes Marshall (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2010, where it was observed that there is no provision for segregating input services for manufacturing or providing output services. Following this precedent, the Tribunal ruled that there is no need for a direct correlation between CENVAT credit availed on input services and payment for output services. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal and stay application by ruling in favor of the appellants based on the absence of a legal requirement for maintaining a separate account for input services utilized in manufacturing final products and providing output services. The decision was grounded in the interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules and the precedent established in a relevant case.