2014 (7) TMI 28 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input service - service tax on dredging services - construction of jetty on the water front - nexus between the dredging services and the manufacturing activities - Held that - Dredging is undertaken in the navigation channel which leads to the jetty of the appellant. The channel is not the private property of the appellant but belongs to the Maharashtra Maritime Board and the channel is also used not only by the appellant but also by several others and therefore, it cannot be said that the benefit of dredging of the channel accrues only to the appellant and not to others and such dredging is entirely in relation to the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. Various case laws stated by the appellant does not help the appellant s case for the reason that the facts involved therein were different and distinguishable. In an identical matter relating to dredging services in respect of Sanghi Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, Rajkot - 2008 (8) TMI 277 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , a co-ordinate bench at Ahmedabad took the view that the issue is contentious and accordingly, pre-deposit of about Rs.10 lakhs against the demand of Rs.55 lakhs was ordered. Therefore, it cannot be said that the issue is settled in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. However, there is a merit in the contention of the appellant that they had disclosed the fact of availing Cenvat Credit on dredging services as early as in October 2006 and therefore, invoking of extended period of time is not justified - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalty on Cenvat Credit for service tax on dredging services.
- Eligibility of dredging services as "input service" under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Disclosure of availing service tax credit on dredging service to the department.
- Nexus between dredging services and manufacturing activities.
- Pre-deposit requirement pending appeal.

Analysis:

1. Eligibility of dredging services as "input service" under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant contested the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raigad, arguing that dredging services should be considered as "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant highlighted agreements with the Maharashtra Maritime Board for constructing a jetty, providing various services including dredging, and the necessity of dredging the water channel for navigation. The appellant cited precedents where similar activities were considered eligible for Cenvat Credit. However, the Tribunal noted that the dredging was not exclusive to the appellant, as the channel was utilized by others as well, and the benefit was not solely for the appellant's manufacturing activities. While acknowledging the appellant's disclosure of availing Cenvat Credit on dredging services, the Tribunal directed a pre-deposit pending appeal.

2. Disclosure of availing service tax credit on dredging service to the department:
The appellant emphasized that they had declared availing service tax credit on dredging services to the department as early as October 2006, providing details in their returns. This disclosure was presented as evidence that no facts were suppressed from the department. The Tribunal considered this disclosure in the context of the extended period of time invoked by the department and found the extended period not justified based on the early disclosure of availing Cenvat Credit on dredging services.

3. Nexus between dredging services and manufacturing activities:
The Revenue argued that there was no direct connection between the dredging services and the manufacturing activities of the appellant, supporting the denial of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for dredging services. The Tribunal examined the relationship between the dredging activities and the manufacturing operations, concluding that the benefit of dredging the channel extended beyond the appellant and did not solely contribute to the manufacturing activities. The Tribunal differentiated the case at hand from previous judgments by highlighting the unique circumstances and lack of a clear nexus between the dredging services and manufacturing operations.

4. Pre-deposit requirement pending appeal:
Considering the factual and legal aspects of the case, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.7.5 lakhs within four weeks, representing the amount for the normal period of limitation. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit of the remaining dues would be waived, and the recovery stayed during the appeal process, providing a procedural direction pending the final resolution of the appeal.