2014 (1) TMI 357 - AT - Service Tax

Disallowance of Cenvat credit - Dismantling of plants - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - dismantling of plant by no stretch of imagination can be held to be input service. Normally input gives rise to tangible output without ending in no output. Nothing more to add for no legal basis advanced by the appellant to show that the activity in question was relevant, indispensable and intimately connected with manufacture or in relation to manufacture or providing output service. When the basic requirement of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not satisfied, the appellant is not entitled to Cenvat credit - there is no observation in the appellate order about existence of ingredients of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 to lend credence to Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It appears to be an interpretation error by the appellant without any mala fide to abuse Cenvat credit. Therefore, there shall not be penalty in respect of the disallowance of Cenvat credit - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Cenvat credit for dismantling of plants and renovation activities, Penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue at hand was the disallowance of Cenvat credit for certain activities and the imposition of penalties under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the disallowed credits were related to manufacturing activities and should be allowed. On the other hand, the respondent supported the appellate order of disallowance.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit for dismantling of plants:
The Tribunal observed that dismantling of plants cannot be considered an input service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant failed to establish a legal basis showing the relevance of the activity to manufacturing or providing output services. Therefore, the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 54,907 was upheld, and the appellant was not entitled to such credit. The penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was deemed inapplicable as there was no evidence of mala fide intent to abuse Cenvat credit.

2. Penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
Regarding the penalty imposed for the disallowance of Cenvat credit, the Tribunal noted that there was no mention of the essential elements of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the appellate order. As a result, the penalty was waived due to an interpretation error by the appellant without any malicious intent to misuse Cenvat credit.

3. Disallowance of Cenvat credit for renovation activities:
In the case of disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 19,603 for renovation activities like installation charges for doors and laying of roads, the Tribunal upheld the decision. It was determined that these services did not qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were not directly related to manufacturing and lacked a tangible connection to the production process. The disallowance was sustained, and the recovery of Cenvat credit was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed on these grounds.

4. Waiver of penalty:
The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal and waiving the penalty, emphasized that the disallowance of Cenvat credit was upheld in both cases. The waiver of penalty was specifically mentioned in relation to the disallowance of Cenvat credit, ensuring that the appellant was not penalized further.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the criteria for claiming Cenvat credit, emphasizing the necessity for activities to be directly linked to manufacturing processes to qualify as input services. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to avoid disallowances and penalties.