2017 (3) TMI 835 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - various input services - denial on the ground that the services do not satisfy the definition of input service u/r 2(l) of CCR,2004 - Held that - admissibility of CENVAT credit on all these services had been considered by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal, in the assessee-Appellant s own case, 2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI , albeit for the subsequent period - After analysing the principle of law laid down by various High Courts and by this Tribunal, the Bench held that credit on each of these services is admissible being satisfies the definition of input service prescribed under 2(l) of CCR,2004 - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on various input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004.

Analysis:

1. Background:
The appeals were filed by both the Revenue and the assessee against the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 16/03/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-RAJKOT. The dispute arose from the availing of Cenvat Credit by the appellant-assessee during the period October 2004 to March 2006 on different 'Input Services'.

2. Arguments by the Assessee:
The advocate for the appellant argued that similar services in question had been considered by the Mumbai Bench of CESTAT for a subsequent period and were deemed admissible. The advocate emphasized that all the services were utilized for the manufacturing business activity and not for personal use, making them eligible for credit. Detailed case laws supporting the admissibility of these services were presented.

3. Revenue's Position:
The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the findings of the Commissioner but failed to present any contrary judgments against the appellant's arguments.

4. Disputed Input Services:
The admissibility of credit on various input services was in dispute, including Advertising Agency Service, Air Travel Agent, Banking and Financial Services, Real Estate Agent Services, among others.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the Mumbai Bench had previously considered the admissibility of credit on the same services in the appellant's case for a subsequent period. After reviewing legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that credit on all the disputed services was admissible as they satisfied the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Since the Revenue could not provide any contradictory judgments, and considering the appellant's submission that the services were used for manufacturing business activity, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order to the extent of denying credit and imposing penalties on the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed for lacking merit.

6. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the Cenvat Credit on the disputed input services and rejecting the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of input services and the specific usage of the services by the appellant in their manufacturing business activity.