2016 (1) TMI 161 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - eligible input services - clearance of DG sets on payment of Duty of excise - Service Tax paid by the Sub-contractor on Erection, installation and commissioning of the DG sets at the sites of their clients - Held that - it is undisputed that the appellant is a provider of taxable service and have provided the same. They are utilising the input service provided by sub-contractors, while providing their output service. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that they are eligible to take cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the input service provided by the sub-contractors. Therefore, we find that the appellant has rightly taken the cenvat credit on the input service provided by the sub-contractors and they have paid the applicable service tax on the output service provided by them. Cenvat Credit allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant, as a service provider and manufacturer, is eligible to avail the credit of service tax paid on input services.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing DG Sets and providing services like erection, installation, and commissioning, faced a dispute regarding the eligibility to claim credit for service tax paid on input services. The department contended that as manufacturers, they could only avail credit up to the "place of removal" of their excisable product. However, the appellant argued that being a service provider, they should be allowed to claim credit for input services used in providing output services, irrespective of their manufacturing activities.

Upon reviewing the arguments and relevant provisions, the Tribunal examined the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The rule encompasses services used by a provider of taxable service for offering output service, as well as services used by a manufacturer in or related to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal noted that the appellant, as a provider of taxable service, fell under the ambit of Rule 2(l)(i), allowing them to claim credit for input services used in providing output services.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant rightfully claimed CENVAT credit for service tax paid on input services provided by their sub-contractors, as these services were utilized in delivering their output services. The appellant had adhered to the tax payment requirements for the output services rendered. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the department's denial of credit based on Rule 2(l)(ii) was unfounded in the appellant's case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.