2016 (12) TMI 535 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - various input services - Held that - In respect of services mentioned under Table-A in both the appeals, I am of the considered opinion that Pest control service, Courier service and Maintenance of RO plant service are very much in the nature of services that are required in relation to the manufacturing activity, their utilisation is also not debarred by the definition under Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004, hence these are very much eligible input services - However, in respect of Godown rent for Maruti castings mentioned under Table-A in both the appeals, I am of the considered opinion that the godown rent was paid for storage of castings manufactured by them and sold to their customer M/s. Maruti Castings. By no stretch of imagination can it be accepted that this is an input service in or in relation to the manufacturing activity. It is only a facilitation provided to the customer. Hence, this service cannot come within the ambit of Rule 2 (i) of CCR, 2004, and therefore not an eligible input service. In respect of services mentioned under Table-B in both the appeals, I am of the considered opinion that CAMC charges for Franking machine, it is seen that the same relate to the service and maintenance charges of franking machine, which is an admissible input service. Postal charges are very much admissible for the purpose of Rule 2 (l) of CCR - However, in respect of the following other services mentioned under Table-B such as i) Man power charges provided to Executive Mess; ii)Car hire charges; iii)Cell phone/Telephone services; iv)Service and maintenance charges for staff bus; v)AMC charges of photo copier availed by the appellant, no clarity about their nature and purpose, is forthcoming from the records, including, in the impugned order. Nor is the ld. Counsel able to throw more light thereon whether or not these are indeed utilised in or in relation to the manufacturing activity or whether they have been utilised by the employees and/or by their families or any other persons who are not concerned with the appellant. In the result, except for Credit relating to godown rent for Maruti Castings and the services discussed in para-7 above, the remaining disputed services are held as eligible input services for the purpose for Rule 2 (l) of CCR. In respect of services listed at para-7, the matter is remanded to original authority for denovo consideration for the limited purpose to enable the appellant to adduce sufficient proof, if any, to satisfy the requirement that they are eligible input services used by them for the purpose of Rule 2 (l) ibid - appeal partly allowed - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Denial of Cenvat credit for specific input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. Appeal No. E/40844/2015:
- The dispute revolves around the eligibility of various input services:
- AMC for pest-o-flash and Pest Control charges
- Godown rent for Maruti Castings
- Courier charges
- Maintenance charges for RO plant and related services
- The Tribunal found that Pest control, Courier service, and Maintenance of RO plant services are essential for manufacturing activity and are eligible as input services.
- However, Godown rent for Maruti Castings was deemed not eligible as it was for storage and not directly related to manufacturing activity.

2. Appeal No. E/40845/2015:
- This appeal concerns the eligibility of different input services:
- AMC for pest-o-flash and pest control charges
- Godown rent for Maruti castings
- Courier charges
- Operation and maintenance charges for RO plant
- Manpower charges for Mess expenses
- AMC charges of photo copier
- The Tribunal ruled that CAMC charges for Franking machine and Postal charges are eligible input services.
- However, services like Manpower charges for Mess, Car hire charges, Cell phone/Telephone services, Service and maintenance charges for staff bus, and AMC charges of photo copier lacked clarity regarding their utilization in manufacturing activity.
- The Tribunal remanded the matter for further consideration to ascertain if these services qualify as eligible input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed both appeals, holding most disputed services as eligible input services except for specific instances where clarity was required regarding their utilization in manufacturing activities. The judgment emphasizes the importance of services directly related to manufacturing and the need for clear evidence to establish eligibility for Cenvat credit under the relevant rules.