2017 (3) TMI 1412 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - The tribunal initially thought that this was a matter requiring detailed consideration. Suddenly it took it up and without indicating in any manner whether both sides concede that it is covered by a judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT allowed it without any further clarification - Held that - instead of this court rendering any final decision interest of justice would be served if we quash and set aside the unreasoned order of the tribunal. We restore the appeal back to the file of the tribunal for a decision afresh in accordance with law uninfluenced by any earlier conclusion. We also clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of input services by a manufacturer of excisable goods.
2. Interpretation of whether specific services qualify as input services for availing input service credit.
3. Justification of the tribunal's decision in applying the ratio from a previous judgment.
4. Validity of setting aside the original order and allowing the respondent's appeal.

Analysis:
1. The tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal regarding the availment of certain input services by the assessee, a manufacturer of excisable goods. The issue revolved around whether the manufacturer could avail input service credit for specific services utilized in the business activity. The tribunal acknowledged the manufacturer's entitlement to input service credit for all services availed during the business operations.

2. Ms. Cardozo contended that there was no concession regarding the applicability of a previous judgment concerning outdoor catering services. The tribunal's decision lacked clarity on whether the services availed by the assessee were identical to those in the referenced judgment, leading to ambiguity in the ruling.

3. The court raised substantial questions of law related to the tribunal's decision, including the justification for applying the ratio from a previous case involving Cenvat Credit on specific services like clearing charges, commission on export sale, and courier services. The court questioned the applicability of the previous judgment to the current case, emphasizing the distinction in the nature and timing of services availed by the respondent.

4. Instead of making a final decision, the court deemed it appropriate to quash the tribunal's unreasoned order and remand the appeal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the conflicting arguments presented, ensuring a fair and unbiased reconsideration of the case by the tribunal. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for further deliberation.