2017 (1) TMI 1360 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit - Input services - Held that - the learned Commissioner (A) in the appellant s own case has allowed the CENVAT credit on these disputed services, I allow both the appeals of the appellant and hold that the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services holding that all the input services fall in the definition of input service - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on input services.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed CENVAT credit on input and input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The dispute arose when a show-cause notice alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on specific services.

2. Contention of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the impugned orders denying CENVAT credit were legally incorrect as they failed to consider the definition of input service. The appellant cited various authorities supporting their claim, asserting that the disputed services fell within the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of CCR.

3. Authorities Relied Upon: The appellant referenced several cases to support their argument, including:
- CCE, Bangalore-II vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd.
- Delphi Automotive System P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida
- XILINK India Technology Services vs. CCE, Hyderabad
- Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai-II
- IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore
- CCE vs. M/s. HCL Technologies
- Order-in-Appeal No.188-191/2016-CE dated 14.12.2016

4. Appellant's Submission: The appellant highlighted that in a subsequent decision, the learned Commissioner (A) allowed CENVAT credit on the same disputed services, recognizing them as input services. The appellant emphasized that the Commissioner relied on Tribunal and High Court decisions to support the allowance of CENVAT credit on various inputs.

5. Respondent's Argument: The learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned orders, opposing the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on the disputed services.

6. Judgment: After considering the appellant's arguments, the cited case laws, and the previous decision favoring the appellant on similar grounds, the Tribunal allowed both appeals. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to CENVAT credit on service tax paid for input services, asserting that all the disputed services fell within the definition of input service. Consequently, both appeals were allowed.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, the authorities referenced, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal in favor of the appellant regarding the CENVAT credit on input services.