2012 (11) TMI 741 - AT - Service Tax

Input services - Cenvat Credit - Manpower Supply Services, Booking Services, Pest Control Services utilised in residential colony, Guest House and Sport Complex or Services utilised for the persons who are not employees of the Company - held that - There has to be nexus between manufacture and input service to avail Cenvat Credit - It is not admissible that manufacture was not feasible if residential colony for employees is not provided near the factory Extended period of limitation - held that - demand for service tax for the period beyond one year cannot be sustained and has to be set-aside and demand for the period from March 2009 to June 2009 only can be sustained Interest is required to be paid. As regards the penalty, in view of the fact that issue involved is a pure question of interpretation of law, question of imposition of penalty does not arise. Accordingly, penalty is set-aside - Appeal is decided holding that appellant is eligible for consequential relief if any. Decision in CCE Versus MANIKGARH CEMENT 2010 (10) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of cenvat credit for service tax on various services utilized in residential colony.

Analysis:
The appellant availed cenvat credit of service tax for services like Manpower Supply, Booking, and Pest Control utilized in residential colony, guest house, and sport complex. The Revenue initiated proceedings claiming the credit was inadmissible, resulting in a demand for wrongly availed cenvat credit with interest and penalty. The advocate argued that establishing a residential colony was essential for the continuous functioning of the factory in a remote area, emphasizing the necessity for efficient manufacturing. The advocate cited various decisions to support the necessity of the residential colony for manufacturing purposes and challenged the Revenue's stance that the services did not have a nexus with manufacture. The advocate emphasized that each case must be decided based on its facts and circumstances to determine the eligibility of input services.

The Revenue contended that there must be a nexus between manufacture and input service for credit to be allowed. Referring to previous decisions, the Revenue argued that the establishment of a residential colony, regardless of the purpose, did not have a direct nexus with manufacturing, thus credit should not be granted. The Revenue relied on decisions by High Courts to support the denial of credit for services received in a residential colony.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions, acknowledging the necessity of determining whether the services in question could be considered input services. The Tribunal noted that the High Courts had previously ruled that services received in a residential colony did not qualify as input services, even if not established for welfare activities. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of legal compulsion in determining credit admissibility and referenced past decisions to support its conclusion. Despite conflicting decisions and the appellant's belief in credit eligibility based on prior rulings, the Tribunal limited the demand for service tax to a specific period, set aside the penalty, and ruled against the appellant's claim for credit on services used in the residential colony.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that while the appellant believed they were eligible for credit based on previous decisions, the demand for service tax beyond a certain period was set aside. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a factual analysis in determining the eligibility of services as input services, ultimately ruling against the appellant's claim for cenvat credit on services utilized in the residential colony.