2017 (8) TMI 464 - AT - Central Excise

Limits in the litigation policy for filing the appeals - scope of input services - Held that - CBEC vide Circular No.390/Msc/163/2010-JC dated 26/12/2014 has clarified that each order-in-original would constitute a separate case and would have to be tested individually for the qualification under litigation policy - Different services may be allowed or not allowed as input services depending on the nature of goods manufactured or the services provided - the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give specific findings in respect of each services on which credit has been denied by the original adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing Cenvat Credit of certain services
- Lack of specific findings by Commissioner (Appeals) on each service
- Interpretation of monetary limits for filing appeals under litigation policy

Analysis:
- The Revenue filed appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing Cenvat Credit of certain services under the head of Activity relating to business. The Revenue argued that the order did not provide specific findings on how each service qualified as an input service, and thus, the order needed to be set aside. It was contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a specific case. The Revenue highlighted that multiple appeals were filed as the total tax amount involved exceeded the limit in the litigation policy for filing appeals.

- The respondent's counsel argued that each order-in-original should be considered a separate case under the litigation policy, as clarified in a circular. The counsel emphasized that even if the Commissioner (Appeals) did not individually adjudicate the admissibility of each service for Cenvat Credit, similar services had been allowed in previous case laws.

- The Tribunal referred to a circular clarifying the application of monetary limits to cases, stating that all cases, including those of recurring nature, fell under the instruction on monetary limits for appeals. The term "case" was interpreted in the context of the National Litigation Policy, emphasizing the reduction of litigation. The Tribunal dismissed certain appeals for not meeting the minimum threshold prescribed in the litigation policy but remanded one appeal back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for specific findings on each service for which credit had been denied by the original adjudicating authority.

- The Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked detailed examination of the services for which credit had been denied, merely listing case laws without specific analysis of how they applied to the case at hand. Different services could be allowed or disallowed based on the goods manufactured or services provided. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for specific findings on each service. The Tribunal dismissed certain appeals but allowed one for remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing specific findings and analysis in decisions related to Cenvat Credit eligibility, the interpretation of monetary limits for filing appeals under the litigation policy, and the need for detailed examination of services in dispute to ensure fair adjudication.