2017 (7) TMI 1259 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - miscellaneous service - employee retention service - personnel profile service - period prior to 27th February 2010 - period thereafter till 30th March 2012 - Held that - The payment of tax while discharging the consideration made over to the service provider is not in dispute. Appellant is a manufacturer of packaging machines and it is claimed that the services pertain to certain aspects of human resource management. On a perusal of the invoices which had been submitted along with appeal, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that these services were not connected with the manufacturing process nor has any explanation backed by acceptable evidence been adduced by the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, interest charges, imposition of penalties under rule 15(3) and 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for two distinct periods.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order confirming a demand of 2,28,598/- under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with interest charges and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The dispute involved the availment of CENVAT credit on services categorized as 'miscellaneous service', 'employee retention service', and 'personnel profile service' for two distinct periods - prior to 27th February 2010 and from then until 30th March 2012.

The appellant, a manufacturer of packaging machines, claimed that the services were related to human resource management aspects connected with the manufacturing process. However, upon reviewing the invoices submitted with the appeal, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude that the services were indeed linked to the manufacturing activity. The tribunal noted the lack of a convincing explanation supported by acceptable evidence from the appellant regarding the utilization of the services in the manufacturing process.

Consequently, the tribunal held that there was no merit in the appellant's submissions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing clear and substantiated evidence to support claims related to the utilization of services for availing CENVAT credit in manufacturing activities.