2019 (6) TMI 1597 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - IPR and Management Consultancy Services used in or in relation to the manufacturing activities of the appellant - period March, 2011 to May, 2011 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant was manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods. As such, they were entitled to take cenvat credit of common input services as provided in Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as regards the specified services therein - Further, it is found that the appellant was entitled to distribute the credit among its other units under the provisions of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Thus, there is no malafide or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant in availing the common input credit in respect of the IPR services and Management Consultancy services. The extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Cenvat credit on IPR and Management Consultancy Services used in manufacturing activities was rightly denied.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked for the period March 2011 to May 2011.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on IPR and Management Consultancy Services:

IPR Services:
- The appellant received technology from Dana Corporation for manufacturing drive shafts and axles under Technology Licensing Agreements and paid royalties, which included service tax under IPR services.
- The appellant argued that the IPR services were used for both exempted final products and dutiable components and parts, thus qualifying for Cenvat credit under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- The department contended that these services were used exclusively for exempted goods, making the credit inadmissible.
- The Tribunal found that the IPR services were indeed used for both exempted and dutiable products, as evidenced by the agreements and invoices, thereby making the credit correctly availed.

Management Consultancy Services:
- The appellant received various services under a Corporate Services Agreement, including Human Resources, Marketing, Legal, and Finance, among others.
- These services were used for the entire unit, encompassing both exempted and dutiable goods.
- The Tribunal noted that the impugned order lacked specific findings against the appellant's contention and concluded that the services were not used exclusively for exempted goods, thus validating the credit availed.

2. Extended Period of Limitation:
- The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 15.03.2016, proposing to recover Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty by invoking the extended period of limitation.
- The appellant argued that the issue was interpretational and all transactions were duly recorded, making the extended period inapplicable.
- The Tribunal agreed, noting that the facts were known to the department since January 2013, and the SCN was issued after more than three years without valid reasons.
- Consequently, the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit on both IPR and Management Consultancy services as they were used for both exempted and dutiable goods.
- The extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the interpretational nature of the issue and the timely recording of transactions.
- The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting the appellant consequential benefits in accordance with the law.