2013 (8) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit on Input Service - input service - credit of service tax paid on rent, security and maintenance - inward / outward transportation goods - nexus of input services with manufacture Held that - As per the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. 2013 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , it is held that as a matter of first principle on a plain and literal construction of Rule 3(1) it is not justified in holding that the appellant would not be entitled to avail of CENVAT credit in respect of services utilized in relation to ammonia storage tanks on the ground that they were situated outside the factory of production - The definition of the expression input service covers any services used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products - Whereas Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit of excise duty and service tax among others paid on any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of the final product, insofar as any input service is concerned, the only stipulation is that it should be received by the manufacturer of the final product - The input services in the present case were used by the Appellant whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products Appellant manufactures dutiable final products and the storage and use of ammonia is an intrinsic part of that process Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Whether the appellant was entitled to avail the cenvat credit of service tax paid on rent, security, and maintenance services.
- Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding eligibility of cenvat credit for input services.
- Application of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in similar cases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat Credit
The case involved a dispute regarding the appellant's availing of Service Tax credit on rent, security, and maintenance services. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, claimed credit for service tax paid on these services. However, it was found during an audit that the services were not directly related to the manufacturing process or clearance of goods from the factory. The department issued a show cause notice for the demand of the cenvat credit availed by the appellant, leading to penalties being imposed. The first appellate tribunal set aside the order based on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, which held that services rendered beyond the place of manufacture could also be eligible for cenvat credit.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules
The argument centered around the interpretation of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which defines input services eligible for cenvat credit. The Revenue contended that the services in question were not directly or indirectly involved in the manufacturing of final products, making them ineligible for credit. However, the appellant's counsel cited a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a similar case, emphasizing that services rendered beyond the place of manufacture could still qualify for cenvat credit. The Tribunal's decision was based on a broad interpretation of the term 'input service' and the legislative intent behind Rule 2(l), allowing for a wider scope of services to be considered eligible for cenvat credit.

Issue 3: Application of Precedent
The Tribunal, after considering both parties' arguments and the relevant legal provisions, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a similar case involving services utilized outside the factory premises. The High Court's decision highlighted the expansive definition of 'input service' and the broad scope intended by the legislature, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the issue at hand was squarely covered by the High Court's precedent, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate tribunal's decision, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the cenvat credit of service tax paid on rent, maintenance, and security services. The judgment was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions, precedent, and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately emphasizing the broad interpretation of 'input service' in determining eligibility for cenvat credit.