2018 (1) TMI 528 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - not just maintenance and operation but also for collection of fly ash and transportation of the same to the appellants manufacturing premises - Held that - On very similar facts as in the case of these appeals, the Tribunal in Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2013 (7) TMI 637 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that credit availed on service tax paid for removal of non-excisable coal fly ash emerging from captive power plant is admissible. Penalty - Held that - the appellants had only availed the credit for services under the bonafide belief that the same are eligible input services - penalties not justified. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the eligibility of Cenvat credit on services related to operation and maintenance of fly ash collection systems, the nexus between the services and manufacturing of goods, the interpretation of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the denial of credit by lower authorities, and the imposition of penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Services:
The appellants availed Cenvat credit based on invoices for operation and maintenance of silos at thermal power plants. The department contended that the credit should be recovered as ineligible input credit. The appellants argued that the services directly related to fly ash procurement, essential for their cement plant, and cited previous rulings supporting their position. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument and remanded the matter to the original authority for further examination.

2. Nexus Between Services and Manufacturing of Goods:
The lower authorities denied credit, stating that the services lacked nexus with manufacturing excisable goods. However, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between input services and other credits, emphasizing Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that credit for services away from the manufacturer's premises could be admissible. The matter was remanded for a fresh assessment considering the contentions of both parties.

3. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Tribunal clarified the scope of Rule 2(l), which includes services indirectly used in or in relation to manufacturing final products. It emphasized that eligible input services could extend beyond the manufacturer's premises. Previous tribunal decisions were cited to support the admissibility of credit in similar scenarios.

4. Denial of Credit by Lower Authorities:
The lower authorities denied credit based on the belief that only operation and maintenance services were involved. However, the appellants argued that the work orders included fly ash collection and transportation to their manufacturing premises. The Tribunal found the denial misconceived and remanded the case for a detailed review.

5. Imposition of Penalties:
The Tribunal considered the appellants' bonafide belief in availing the credit and the public nature of the MOUs with relevant entities. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the imposition of penalties unjustified and set them aside in all three appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals, remanding the matter for a fresh assessment of the eligibility of Cenvat credit on services related to fly ash collection systems and overturning the penalties imposed on the appellants.