2017 (12) TMI 706 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - works contract service - input services - Held that - the work awarded to contractors fall in the definition of input service even after 1.4.2011 and they are not excluded by the amendment to input service w.e.f. 1.4.2011 - all these services availed by the appellant from the various contractors fall in the definition of input service and the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on works contract services post 1.4.2011
- Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) regarding ineligible CENVAT credit

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of CENVAT credit on works contract services post 1.4.2011
The appellant, a manufacturer of various products under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, availed CENVAT credit on works contract services post 1.4.2011. The original authority issued a show-cause notice for taking ineligible CENVAT credit and confirmed an amount as ineligible along with imposing a penalty. The appellant contended that the impugned order disallowed the credit without considering the law, documents, and invoices. The appellant argued that the services from various contractors qualified as input services even after 1.4.2011 and were not excluded by the amendment. The nature of work awarded to contractors, as per invoices, fell within the definition of input service. The appellant provided specific details for each contractor to support their claim for eligibility of CENVAT credit.

Issue 2: Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) regarding ineligible CENVAT credit
The Commissioner (A) rejected the appellant's appeal against the original authority's decision to disallow CENVAT credit on certain works contract services. The appellant argued that the work awarded to contractors qualified as input services and were eligible for credit. The appellant presented detailed arguments and specific examples for each contractor to demonstrate the validity of availing CENVAT credit. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order did not consider the legal position, documents, and invoices on record. The appellant highlighted instances where CENVAT credit was allowed by the original authority for certain services, indicating the eligibility of the appellant for such credits. The appellant's submissions were supported by the nature of work awarded to contractors and the specific services provided by each contractor, showing that they fell within the definition of input services.

In the final judgment, after considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the contracts and invoices, the Tribunal held that the services availed by the appellant from various contractors qualified as input services even post 1.4.2011. The Tribunal found that the nature of work awarded to contractors was within the definition of input service and not excluded by the amendment. Therefore, the impugned order disallowing the CENVAT credit was deemed unsustainable in law, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed.