2009 (3) TMI 136 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - the denial of credit to the respondent in respect of the credit availed on Service Tax paid on the services like Insurance Premium; repair of vehicles; AMC charges on telecom; courier charges Held that - all the services which are availed by the respondent are in respect of manufacturing activity i.e. manufacturing and exporting of coffee powder which is their final product - these services have been received or rendered only in relation to the manufacture of final products revenue appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of credit on Service Tax paid for various services like Insurance Premium, repair of vehicles, AMC charges on telecom, courier charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of credit on Service Tax paid for various services
The issue revolved around the denial of credit to the respondent for Service Tax paid on services like Insurance Premium, repair of vehicles, AMC charges on telecom, and courier charges. The lower authorities issued show-cause notices denying credit on these services, stating they were not covered under 'input services'. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the definition of "input service" under rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and emphasized the need to interpret the rule in line with the legislative intent. The Commissioner held that services used in or in relation to the manufacture and clearance of final products are covered under the rule. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the services in question did not fall under the definition of 'input service' as per the rules.

Issue 2: Interpretation of 'input service' definition
The revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the government's intention in restricting the scope of input services as defined in the rules. They argued that services like insurance premium, repair of vehicles, and AMC charges on telecom were not covered under the definition of 'input service'. The revenue also cited a Tribunal decision regarding courier services to support their argument that credit for service tax paid on courier services was not admissible. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the definition of 'input services' is broad and cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance.

Issue 3: Application of Tribunal decisions
The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions, including a Larger Bench decision, to determine the eligibility of the respondent for Cenvat credit on the services in question. The Tribunal noted that all services availed by the respondent were related to their manufacturing and exporting activities, specifically in the production of coffee powder. Relying on the precedent set by the Larger Bench and other Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, stating that the services were indeed in relation to the manufacture of final products. The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the revenue, emphasizing that the issue was squarely covered by previous decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the impugned orders and ruling in favor of the respondent regarding the denial of credit on Service Tax paid for services like Insurance Premium, repair of vehicles, AMC charges on telecom, and courier charges. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the definition of 'input service', legislative intent, and previous Tribunal judgments establishing the broad interpretation of services related to manufacturing activities.