2016 (2) TMI 821 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of cenvat credit of service tax denied - service tax paid as consultancy fees to M/s. NABARD for preparation of the draft project report for maize processing and dairy units - denial of credit on the ground that the same cannot be considered to be covered by the definition of input services - invoking extended period of limitation - Held that - Admittedly the service tax was paid by the assessee on the services obtained from NABARD in relation to preparation of draft project report for maize processing and dairy units, in the same factory, in which the appellant was manufacturing sugar and molasses. The definition of input services includes the services used in relation to setting up of factory. The draft project report prepared by M/s. NABARD was in respect of individual setting up of part of the factory and as such can be held to be covered by the said definition. Further the said explanation used the expression that any activities relating to business would also be covered by the definition of input services . The said phrase i.e. activities relating to business was the subject matter of the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and it was held that the expression business is an integrated continuous activity and not confined or restricted to mere manufacture of product. Activities in relation to business can cover all activities relating to functioning of a business and the said term cannot be given a restricted meaning inasmuch as the same is of wide import in fiscal statutes. As such it is of the view that the said activity being in relation to the appellant s business and in relation to setting up of a factory has to be held as covered by the definition of input service . Apart from that also find that the demand stands raised by invoking the longer period of limitation. The credit was availed by the appellant, by reflecting the same in the statutory records as also in the monthly returns. As such no malafide can be attributed to the appellant so as to invoke the longer period. Accordingly hold the demand is barred by limitation also. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit for service tax paid as consultancy fees to M/s. NABARD for preparation of project report.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, the appellant was denied the benefit of cenvat credit amounting to &8377; 97,920/- for service tax paid as consultancy fees to M/s. NABARD for preparing a draft project report for maize processing and dairy units. The Revenue proposed to deny the credit on the grounds that it did not fall under the definition of "input services." However, after considering both sides, the Judicial Member found that the services obtained from NABARD for the project report were related to setting up a part of the factory, which falls under the definition of "input services." The judgment referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III, which clarified that the term "business" encompasses all activities related to the functioning of a business, not just limited to manufacturing. Therefore, the project report preparation was deemed to be in relation to the appellant's business and setting up of a factory, making it eligible for cenvat credit.

Additionally, the judgment addressed the issue of the demand being raised under the longer period of limitation. It was noted that the appellant had availed the credit transparently by reflecting it in statutory records and monthly returns, without any malafide intent. As a result, the demand was considered to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on both merit and limitation, granting relief to the appellant.