2017 (12) TMI 761 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - foreign exchange broking service - AMC for cooler machines - audio & video conference - Export-DEPB service - Held that - all these services on which CENVAT credit has been denied fall under the definition of input service as the same relates to the business of the appellant and it is very difficult for the appellant to run the business in the absence of all these services - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of CENVAT credit under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for ineligible input services.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) disallowing CENVAT credit of ?99,619 under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The audit revealed that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on ineligible input services not used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished products. A show-cause notice was issued for denial and recovery of service tax credit amounting to ?38,73,980. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand, disallowed credit of ?61,722 along with interest, and allowed credit of ?38,73,980. The Department appealed before the Commissioner(Appeals) challenging the correctness of CENVAT credit allowed on specific services.

The Department contended that CENVAT credit had not been correctly allowed for services including Foreign Exchange Broking Service, Telephone Charges, Annual Maintenance Contract for cooler machines, Audio & Video Conference, and Export-DEPB. The Commissioner(Appeals) disallowed credit on certain services but allowed it on telephone charges and maintenance of telephones. The appellant argued that the impugned order denying CENVAT credit on input services was incorrect and contrary to judicial precedent. They claimed that these services were essential for statutory compliance and directly related to manufacturing activities.

The appellant provided detailed justifications for each disallowed service. They argued that the services were necessary for business operations and statutory requirements. For example, they explained that the foreign exchange broking service was related to remuneration payment for staff on temporary transfer. Similarly, they clarified that services like AMC for cooler machines and audio & video conference were essential for manufacturing activities and business operations. The appellant asserted that denial of CENVAT credit on these services was unjustified.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Judicial Member found that the disallowed services fell under the definition of input services crucial for the appellant's business operations. The Member concluded that the appellant would face difficulties in running the business without these services. Consequently, the Member set aside the impugned order and allowed the CENVAT credit on all the disputed services. The appeal was allowed, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 10/11/2017.