2014 (11) TMI 708 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - CENVAT Credit - various input services - Held that - almost the entire amount (save paltry sums), of impugned credit is prima-facie admissible as per the various judicial pronouncement in favour of the appellants. We are therefore of the view that the appellants have been able to make out a fairly good case for waiver of pre-deposit. We accordingly waive the pre-deposit of the adjudicated liabilities and stay recovery thereof during pendency of the appeals - Following decision of Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd V/s. CCE 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , Cadila Health Care 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd V/s. CCE 2011 (2) TMI 1276 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , Raymond Zambaiti Pvt Ltd 2008 (8) TMI 777 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PUNE-II , Zydus Nycomed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd V/s. CCE 2012 (11) TMI 1012 - CESTAT MUMBAI , Castro India Ltd V/s. CCE 2013 (9) TMI 709 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , Jaypee Rewa Plant V/s. CCE 2009 (7) TMI 150 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , CTS V/s. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organisations 2005 (3) TMI 3 - CESTAT (CHENNAI) - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of cenvat credit on various services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-original that disallowed cenvat credit on multiple services along with interest and penalty. The services disallowed were categorized into two groups: services at plant level and input service tax distribution by HO-31 services. The appellants contended that the credit on the impugned services should be allowed based on various judicial pronouncements. Notably, the major portion of the disallowed credit for construction service pertained to a period before April 2011. The appellants provided detailed submissions and sample copies of bills/invoices to support their claim for cenvat credit on services like after-sales service, construction service, photography services, and more.

Regarding the construction service, the appellants argued that the construction work done in the factory premises constituted an input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules. They cited a decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their own case to support their claim. Similarly, for services like mandap service with catering, photography services, and pandal & shamiana services, the appellants presented arguments and relevant case laws to justify their claim for cenvat credit. The appellants meticulously detailed how each service was utilized for business purposes, such as training employees, organizing business meetings, or promoting sales activities.

The appellants referenced specific case laws to strengthen their arguments, such as Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd V/s. CCE-2009, Jaypee Rewa Plant V/s. CCE-2009, and Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd V/s. CCE-2011, among others. They provided sample copies of bills/invoices to demonstrate the utilization of the services for business-related activities. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had made a compelling case for the admissibility of the cenvat credit based on the judicial pronouncements and supporting documentation provided. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of the adjudicated liabilities and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the appeals.