2017 (2) TMI 55 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - CENVAT credit - renting of immovable property located at Mumbai - denial on the ground that the service tax paid pertains to the rental charges of immovable property situated at Mumbai, housing the corporate office of the assessee. These premises are not connected to the manufacturing activity and clearance of the finished goods - Held that - the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on rent of Mumbai premises as the said premises is directly related to the manufacturing activity - denial of CENVAT credit in respect of service tax paid on renting of immovable property located in Mumbai is wrong - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on renting of immovable property located at Mumbai.

Analysis:
In this case, the appellants filed four appeals against different impugned orders, all involving the denial of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on renting immovable property in Mumbai. The central issue across all appeals was the connection of the rented property to the manufacturing activity. The appellant, a pharmaceutical industry engaged in manufacturing and export, rented premises in Mumbai for regulatory activities related to their manufacturing operations in Bangalore. The dispute arose when the Central Excise authority demanded reversal of CENVAT credit, arguing that the rented property in Mumbai was not connected to the manufacturing or clearance of final products. The original authority confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (A) and subsequently to the present appeals.

The appellant contended that the impugned order was legally unsustainable, as it misinterpreted the legal provisions and ignored precedent decisions. They argued that the regulatory activities carried out at the Mumbai office were integral to their manufacturing operations, making the rented property directly related to manufacturing. The appellant emphasized that the Mumbai office was solely used by them and not by any sister concerns, and the regulatory work conducted there was crucial for pre-manufacturing activities in the pharmaceutical industry. They also presented evidence of the technical engineers employed at the Mumbai office, directly involved in manufacturing operations. The appellant highlighted the necessity of various licensing permissions obtained from drug authorities in Mumbai for their manufacturing processes.

The appellant cited several legal decisions in support of their claim, emphasizing the relevance of regulatory activities and the absence of a requirement for input services to be provided or received within the factory premises. The Tribunal's previous decision in the appellant's case, allowing CENVAT credit for service tax paid on rent of Mumbai premises, was also referenced. After considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to CENVAT credit for service tax paid on the rent of the Mumbai premises, as the property was directly related to their manufacturing activity. The impugned order denying the credit was deemed incorrect, leading to the allowance of all four appeals by setting aside the earlier decision.