2016 (9) TMI 138 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit - service tax paid on the input services such as security services, maintenance services and construction services - Held that - denying CENVAT credit by only relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manikgarh Cement 2010 (10) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT on the ground that the views expressed in the said judgment was not considered in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cannot sustain. The issue in the present case in hand and in respect of the very same assessee, being decided by the Division Bench, therefore, by respectfully following the same, I hold that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services such as security services, maintenance services, and construction services.

Analysis:

1. Issue: Eligibility for CENVAT credit
The issue in this case revolves around the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on specific input services. The Revenue argued that these services were not 'in or in relation to' the manufacturing activity, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a previous case. However, the appellant presented a copy of a Division Bench order in their own case, where a similar issue was decided in their favor. The Division Bench relied on a different judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and upheld the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit for various services rendered at residential quarters. The Member noted that the Division Bench's decision was based on a different judgment and found the Revenue's reliance on the previous judgment to be insufficient. Consequently, the Member set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with any consequential relief.

2. Decision and reasoning
After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Member found that the issue at hand was similar to the one previously decided by a Division Bench in the appellant's case. The Member, who was part of that Division Bench, upheld the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit based on a different judgment than the one cited by the Revenue. The Member concluded that denying CENVAT credit solely based on the previous judgment was not sustainable, especially when a different judgment had been considered in a similar case involving the same assessee. Consequently, the Member set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, providing for any consequential relief that may be applicable.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, the legal reasoning behind the decision, and the final outcome in favor of the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant legal precedents and judgments.