2013 (2) TMI 618 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on royalty charges - Held that - The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Sharon brand plywood along with their own brand, that is, in the manufacture of plywood, they had affixed the brand name of Sharon and cleared it from their factory. Therefore, it can be inferred that the service tax paid on the royalty, (IPR Services) were used in or in relation to the manufacture of their Sharon branded plywood . Thus, it is squarely covered under the definition of input services laid down under Rule 2 (l) (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit and penalty. Eligibility of cenvat credit on input services availed.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Dr. D. M. Misra at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata pertained to an application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit and penalty amounting to Rs.95,398. The primary issue in this case revolved around the eligibility of cenvat credit on input services utilized by the appellant. The consultant for the appellant argued that the cenvat credit was denied on the input service of IPR service, which was used in the manufacture of Sharon branded plywood and not for trading purposes. The consultant contended that the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was not correctly considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner for the Department acknowledged that the input services were indeed used in the manufacture of Sharon branded plywood, as confirmed by the Range Superintendent.

Upon careful consideration of the facts and submissions from both parties, it was established that the appellants were involved in the manufacturing of plywood under their own brand name and the Sharon brand. Initially, the cenvat credit on the input services, specifically the royalty charges paid to M/s Sharon Veneers (P) Ltd., was disallowed on the premise that it was not used in the manufacture of plywood but for trading the branded plywood. However, the report from the Range Superintendent provided clarity that the appellants were engaged in manufacturing Sharon branded plywood along with their own brand, thereby using the service tax paid on the royalty (IPR Services) in relation to the manufacture of Sharon branded plywood. This usage aligned with the definition of input services as per Rule 2(l)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Dr. D. M. Misra concurred with the consultant's argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the first part of Clause (ii) of the definition of input services, which pertains to the usage by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to lack merit, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, with any consequential relief to be granted as per the law. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal and disposing of the stay petition.

In summary, the judgment at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata addressed the issue of cenvat credit eligibility on input services, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the definition of input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the evidence presented regarding the utilization of the input services in the manufacture of Sharon branded plywood.