2017 (7) TMI 60 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Water Treatment Expenses - duty paying invoices - Rule 9 of CCR - Held that - the impugned order denying the cenvat credit on Company Secretary Service, Water Treatment Service and Xerox Machine Service is not sustainable in law in view of the decisions cited by the appellant in the case of M/s Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax 2016 (7) TMI 1207 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that the impugned services are eligible input services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on input services like Water Treatment Expenses, Maintenance of Photocopy Machine, and Company Secretary Service.
2. Rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original disallowing cenvat credit.
3. Discrepancies in the documents submitted for availing cenvat credit.
4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the denial of cenvat credit on various input services. The Departmental audit party observed that the appellant availed credit on services like Water Treatment Expenses, which were deemed not falling under the purview of input services as defined in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, discrepancies were noted in the documents submitted for availing cenvat credit, including unsigned documents and photocopies of invoices not conforming to Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The denial of cenvat credit regarding Company Secretary Service was based on the absence of invoice details. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to the recovery of an amount. The original authority disallowed cenvat credit along with interest and imposed a penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to file an appeal challenging the denial of cenvat credit on these services.

2. During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the impugned order wrongly denied cenvat credit on the input services mentioned. Specifically, the denial of cenvat credit for Company Secretary Service was contested on the grounds that the service did not fall within the ambit of the manufacture of the final product. The appellant also refuted the denial of cenvat credit for Water Treatment Service, citing compliance with the Pollution Control Act, which mandates treating toxic effluents before disposal. Regarding the Maintenance of Photocopy Machine service, the appellant asserted that original copies of invoices were produced before the original authority, although this evidence was allegedly overlooked. The appellant presented supporting documentation and relied on legal precedents where similar services were deemed as input services.

3. The learned AR supported the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the denial of cenvat credit on the mentioned services. After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order's denial of cenvat credit on Company Secretary Service, Water Treatment Service, and Xerox Machine Service was unsustainable in law. Citing the legal precedents provided by the appellant, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on a specified date.