2019 (11) TMI 1471 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Air Travel Services - Car Insurance Services - Construction Services - Courier Services - Courier of sample services - Dismantling of Old Crane Power Press Services - Estate Consultancy Services - Fixing of Roofing Cladding Sheet Services - Flooring of Factory Services - Hyundi Car Insurance Services - Insurance of Vehicle Services - Internet Telephone Services - Maintenance Repair Services - Management Consultancy Service - Share Transfer Services - Stock Exchange Services - Telephone Services - Testing Analysis Services - Xerox Copier Services - services provided by bank - Excess service tax credit availed on works contract service - Ocean Freight - period from April 2009 to March 2015. HELD THAT - For ascertaining the eligibility for cenvat credit in respect of the disputed services, the definition of 'input service', provided under Rule 2(l) ibid is relevant for consideration. The case of the appellant falls under both pre as well as post amended definition of input service. Under the pre-amended definition of input service (effective up to 31.03.2011), the scope and ambit of input service was very broad and comprehensive inasmuch as the phrase activities relating to business was specifically finding place in the inclusive part of such definition. The effect of such expression is that any services availed by a service provider for accomplishing the purpose of its business, should be considered as input service. The scope of input service was also widespread under the amended definition of input service (w.e.f. 01.04.2011) inasmuch as the expression any service used by a provider of output service for providing an output service was incorporated in such definition clause. Further, the inclusive part of definition has also widened the scope and ambit, meaning thereby that all most all the services used by a service provider were recognized as input service for the purpose of availment of Cenvat benefit. However, certain excluded category of services were provided in the definition clause, which would not be considered as input service in the case of a service provider. For ascertaining eligibility of cenvat benefit on the disputed services,proper examination of the contract, documents, invoices etc. are required. Since, the disputed case to case issues cannot be effectively examined at this stage, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for a proper fact finding, whether the disputed goods should be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of the Cenvat benefit - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat benefit on various disputed services.
2. Definition and scope of 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Examination of eligibility for Cenvat credit for the period from April 2009 to March 2015.
4. Proper examination of contracts, documents, and invoices for determining eligibility.
5. Remand to the original authority for proper fact-finding and consideration of judicial pronouncements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Cenvat benefit on various disputed services:
The authorities denied the Cenvat benefit on the ground that the disputed services do not conform to the definition of 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant submitted a chart detailing the disputed services, reasons for denial, and their submissions supporting the availment of Cenvat credit. The appellant argued that the disputed services fall within the definition of input service both before and after the amendment to Rule 2(l). The appellant relied on various judicial pronouncements to support their stand.

2. Definition and scope of 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The pre-amended definition of input service (effective up to 31.03.2011) was broad and comprehensive, including the phrase "activities relating to business." This meant that any service availed by a service provider for business purposes should be considered an input service. The amended definition (effective from 01.04.2011) also had a wide scope, including "any service used by a provider of output service for providing an output service." However, certain excluded categories were specified, which would not be considered input services.

3. Examination of eligibility for Cenvat credit for the period from April 2009 to March 2015:
The period of dispute is from April 2009 to March 2015. To ascertain eligibility for Cenvat credit, the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) is crucial. Both the pre-amended and post-amended definitions need to be considered. The appellant's case falls under both definitions, requiring a thorough examination of the services availed during this period.

4. Proper examination of contracts, documents, and invoices for determining eligibility:
The judgment emphasized the need for a proper examination of contracts, documents, and invoices to determine whether the disputed services qualify as input services for Cenvat benefit. The original authority is required to conduct a detailed fact-finding process to ascertain the eligibility of the disputed services.

5. Remand to the original authority for proper fact-finding and consideration of judicial pronouncements:
The impugned order denying the Cenvat benefit was set aside. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a proper finding on whether the disputed services qualify as input services under both the un-amended and amended definitions. The original authority is instructed to examine the appellant's submissions, including judicial pronouncements, and the details provided in the submitted chart. The appellant should be granted an opportunity for a personal hearing before a fresh decision is made.

Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority for a thorough examination and proper finding on the eligibility of the disputed services for Cenvat credit. The original authority must consider the appellant's submissions, judicial pronouncements, and provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before deciding the issue afresh.

← Previous Next →