2018 (1) TMI 1199 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Club or Association Services - Held that - It is seen from the records that the appellant has produced the invoices in relation to the said services. In spite of such remand, the authorities below have not gone through the documents - The denial of credit on such services prior to the period 2011 is unjustified since there are plethora of decisions which have held that such services are eligible for credit - denial of credit after the period justified - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing cenvat credit on Club or Association Services.
2. Disallowance of credit on certain services.
3. Eligibility of input services for credit.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the appellant availing cenvat credit on input services, including Club or Association Services. The issue arose when it was discovered that the appellant had wrongly claimed credit on such services for a specific period. A show cause notice was issued, leading to disallowance of credit, imposition of penalties, and interest. Despite appeals, the disallowance was upheld until the matter reached the Tribunal.

2. During the proceedings, the appellant admitted that credit for membership in a Gymkhana club, considered for personal consumption, was not contested. However, the appellant contested the disallowance of credit on various other services related to subscriptions, program fees, legal aid, trade associates, and club membership fees. The appellant provided detailed justifications for each service, linking them to business activities and eligibility for credit.

3. The Tribunal, after remanding the issue to the adjudicating authority for document submission, found that the authorities failed to review the documents provided by the appellant. Upon examination of the invoices and considering precedents like Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Pune, which established the eligibility of similar input services for credit, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit on the services in question was unjustified. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal partly, with possible consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to availing cenvat credit on specific services, the disallowance of credit by the authorities, and the eligibility of input services for credit. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of reviewing documents, considering precedents, and ensuring that services linked to business activities are rightfully eligible for credit, ultimately providing relief to the appellant in this case.