2017 (12) TMI 939 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - various input services - Held that - all these services on which CENVAT credit has been denied fall in the definition of input service . The Commissioner (A) has observed that the appellant have not produced documentary evidence to substantiate their claim; whereas, the appellant has stated that they had produced the documents but still the Commissioner (A) has not seen the documents though the appellant had attached the copies of the challan, statement showing computation, sample bills along with the present appeal - case is remanded for the verification of the documents - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of CENVAT credit on various input services by Commissioner (A) under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 10.7.2014.
- Applicability of input services definition as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
- Submission of documentary evidence to substantiate the claim.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the Commissioner (A)'s order disallowing CENVAT credit on certain input services availed by the appellant, a manufacturer of digital panel meters and energy meters. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit of Rs. 11,66,135/- on Service Tax paid on various input services, which the authorities found irregular as not covered under the definition of input services as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the disallowed services indeed qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) and cited relevant case laws to support their claim. The services in question included AMC services for furniture, fixtures, and climate charges, associate membership fees, building architect services, erection, commissioning, and installation charges, as well as charges for floor tiles, electrical fittings, photocopier lease, foreign transactions, among others. The appellant contended that these services were essential for manufacturing activities and had been recognized as input services in previous judgments.

The appellant highlighted that they had provided documentary evidence to support their claim, which the Commissioner (A) allegedly did not consider adequately. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (A) failed to acknowledge the relevance of the provided documents, including challans, computation statements, and sample bills. In contrast, the appellant emphasized that the input services disallowed for CENVAT credit were in line with the definition of input services and had been upheld as such in previous judicial decisions.

Upon reviewing the submissions and case laws presented by the appellant, the Judicial Member found merit in the appellant's arguments. The Judicial Member noted that the disallowed input services fell within the definition of "input service" as explained in the case laws cited by the appellant. Consequently, the Judicial Member allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents where necessary. The decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment based on the provided evidence and the established definition of input services, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of aligning decisions with legal provisions and judicial precedents to uphold the rights of taxpayers in availing CENVAT credit on legitimate input services. The detailed analysis and consideration of relevant case laws played a crucial role in overturning the disallowance of CENVAT credit, highlighting the significance of substantiating claims with appropriate documentation in tax-related matters.