9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1166 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - various input services - Held that - I find that these services on which the CENVAT Credit had been denied to the Appellant, are considered by this Tribunal in various judgments, also in the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd case 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Cadila Healthcare Ltd case 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , and decided in favour of the Assessee, observing that all these services viz. Environmental Consultancy charges, Third Party Safety charges, Energy Audit Report charges had nexus with the manufacturing activity, accordingly satisfy the definition of input service as prescribed under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Also, the charges relating to Annual Subscription to Sugar Manufacturers Association has been allowed by this Tribunal in the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Udyog Mandli Ltd Vs. CCE 2016 (11) TMI 1070 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . Thus, the impugned order is set aside being devoid of merit - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against denial of CENVAT Credit on input services. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denying CENVAT Credit on various input services including Environmental Consultancy charges, Energy Audit Report charges, Third Party Safety charges, and charges related to Annual Subscription to Sugar Manufacturers’ Association. The Appellant argued that these services are used in or in relation to their manufacturing activity and thus fall within the scope of the definition of input services, making them eligible for CENVAT Credit. The Appellant cited judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, along with Tribunal decisions, to support their claim. The Revenue, represented by the Authorised Representative, supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the CENVAT Credit to the Appellant. However, the Member (Judicial) analyzed the case and referred to various judgments, including those of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, which ruled in favor of the Assessee in similar cases. The Member (Judicial) noted that the services in question, such as Environmental Consultancy charges, Third Party Safety charges, and Energy Audit Report charges, had a nexus with the manufacturing activity and satisfied the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, the charges related to Annual Subscription to Sugar Manufacturers’ Association were also allowed in a previous Tribunal decision. Consequently, the impugned order denying the CENVAT Credit was set aside for lacking merit, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the appeal against the denial of CENVAT Credit on various input services by establishing the nexus of these services with the manufacturing activity and their eligibility under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the specific context and usage of services in determining their qualification for CENVAT Credit, as evidenced by previous judicial decisions and Tribunal rulings cited during the proceedings.
|
