2008 (1) TMI 357 - AT - Service Tax

Common input services used in the mfg. of rectified spirit (exempted) & denatured spirit (dutiable) SCN has not quantified the input services used in die manufacture of rectified spirit nor the quantum of credit Comm. (A) has remanded the matter only to determine the exact quantity, hence entire SCN is not required to be set aside - nothing wrong in remanding matter to original authority to determine the specific input services used in the mfg. of rectified spirit and to quantify the same

Summary

Issues:
Cenvat credit availed on input services for manufacturing exempted products, show cause notice validity, reversal of credit for exempted final product, remand order clarification.

Analysis:
The appellants were involved in the manufacturing of various products and availed Cenvat credit on duty paid molasses used as a common input for both exempted and dutiable products. However, they did not maintain separate accounts for inputs and input services as required by Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, they were asked to pay an amount equivalent to Cenvat credit attributable to inputs in exempted products as well as input services. The issue arose when the appellants were demanded to pay service tax on input services used in manufacturing the exempted product, rectified spirit, based on a presumption of 25% utilization. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed a penalty.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appellants' contention that the show cause notice lacked specificity regarding input services and their credit utilization, remanding the matter for clarification. The appellants argued that the entire notice should be set aside due to presumptions and assumptions. They also highlighted that input services used for manufacturing duty-paid molasses, cleared before rectified spirit production, should not be considered for the exempted product. The appeal was then brought before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the need to reverse credit for inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products but noted the lack of quantification in the show cause notice. While agreeing with the remand for determining specific input services for rectified spirit production, the Tribunal emphasized that services used after molasses clearance should be considered. The matter was disposed of with these clarifications, ensuring the adjudicating authority considers the sequence of input service utilization in determining any duty liability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the remand order to specify input services for manufacturing the exempted product, rectified spirit, while emphasizing the importance of considering services used post-molasses clearance. The judgment provided clarity on reversing credits and highlighted the necessity of accurate quantification for duty liabilities related to input services in such cases.