2016 (1) TMI 19 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Eligible input services - nexus with manufacturing activity - input services like, CHA service, Advertising Agency s service, Chartered Accountant s service, Photography Services, Maintenance or Repair service, Stock Broking services, Technical Inspection & Repair service, Stock Broking services, Technical Inspection & Certification Services - Held that - this bench in the respondent s own case 2015 (11) TMI 100 - CESTAT MUMBAI had held that any services which are considered for pricing of final product, CENVAT Credit should be allowed. - appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of CENVAT Credit on various services availed by the respondent for manufacturing and clearing of goods.

Analysis:
1. Issue of denial of CENVAT Credit: The main issue in this case revolved around the denial of CENVAT Credit on services like CHA service, Advertising Agency's service, Chartered Accountant's service, Photography Services, Maintenance or Repair service, Stock Broking services, Technical Inspection & Repair service, and Technical Inspection & Certification Services. The Revenue and the learned AR contended that these services were not directly related to the manufacturing activity of the respondent. The first appellate authority had set aside the Order-in-Original which denied the CENVAT Credit to the respondent. It was argued that these services were not under the definition of input services and were not directly concerned with the manufacturing activity of the respondent.

2. Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules: The impugned Order-in-Appeal highlighted that Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allows full CENVAT credit on specified services unless these services are exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or providing exempted services. It was emphasized that services like Maintenance or Repair Service and Technical Inspection & Certification Services were covered under these 17 specified services. The appellate authority noted that the denial of credit on services like Advertising Agency, Stock Broking Service, Photography, Chartered Accountant, and others was not justified as these services were related to business activities, even if not directly linked to the manufacturing and sales promotion of goods.

3. Precedents and Legal Interpretation: The judgment referred to precedents and legal interpretations to support the argument that any input service forming part of the value of final products should be eligible for CENVAT credit. It was highlighted that the term "business" should not be narrowly defined to only include the manufacture of the final product but should encompass all activities related to the functioning of a business. The judgment cited a case involving Xerox machine charges where credit was allowed, emphasizing that as long as activities are associated directly or indirectly with the manufacture of final products, credit should be permitted.

4. Decision and Dismissal of Appeal: The learned Counsel for the respondent cited a previous judgment by the same Bench in a similar issue, supporting the allowance of CENVAT Credit for services considered in the pricing of final products. The Tribunal found merit in the contentions raised by the respondent's counsel and upheld the impugned order, stating that the appeal filed by the Revenue lacked merits. The judgment concluded that the impugned order was correct, legal, and free from any infirmity, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the denial of CENVAT Credit on various services and the legal interpretations and precedents considered in arriving at the decision to dismiss the appeal.