2016 (9) TMI 680 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - various input services - nexus with manufacturing activity - gardening services, booking binding services, ticket booking services, e-filing services, repairs to culvers & piling works, business improvement services/catering/restaurant services, painting services, mechanical repairs to tanks, washing of lab coats/ laundry services, crane hiring services, foreign payments, data entry services, consultancy services, fabrication services, erection & commissioning services, shifting of scrap services, road cleaning services, AMC for Godrej make furniture, water washing of vehicles etc. Held that - the appeal is allowed except in respect of credit amount of ₹ 13,601/- availed by the appellant in relation to cleaning of roads. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on various input services availed by the Appellants.
2. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.
3. Disputed credit amounts for specific services like anti-termite treatment, business improvement services, interior development, AMC for furniture, repairs for JCB, washing of vehicles, tanker agency at ports, data entry services, cleaning of roads, and housekeeping services.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Appellants challenged the disallowance of CENVAT credit on multiple input services. They argued that all services used in the manufacturing process, except those specifically excluded, are eligible for credit. They cited the Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the freedom of the assessee to follow a beneficial view. The Appellants referred to various CESTAT decisions supporting the eligibility of similar services for CENVAT credit.

Issue 2: The Department contended that post-amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, credit on certain services became ineligible due to lack of nexus with manufacturing activities. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, focusing on services directly or indirectly related to manufacturing and clearance of final products.

Issue 3: The Tribunal examined each disputed credit amount for specific services. It held that services like anti-termite treatment, business improvement services, interior development, AMC for furniture, and repairs for JCB were eligible for credit as they were directly related to manufacturing activities. However, services like cleaning of roads were deemed ineligible for credit as they were not directly linked to manufacturing processes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, except for the credit amount related to cleaning of roads. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of each disputed credit amount in relation to the manufacturing process. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting the CENVAT Credit Rules to determine the eligibility of input services for availing credit.