2018 (5) TMI 673 - AT - Service Tax

Input service distribution - Recovery u/r 14 of CCR, 2004 - demand on the ground that the input service viz. air travel agent service, is not admissible as the service related to business activity shall exclude on the definition of input service with effect from 1.4.2011 - Held that - Rule 14 applies to the person who avails credit wrongly which is recoverable - In the present case, the appellant has not availed the credit whereas they have distributed the input service credit to their respective manufacturing unit who, in turn, availed the credit. Input service distributor does not fall under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as they neither avail the cenvat credit nor utilize the same for payment of any service tax/excise duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial and recovery of cenvat credit under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on input service distributed by an input service distributor.

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around a show cause notice issued for the denial and recovery of cenvat credit under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the input service distributed. The demand was initially confirmed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading the appellant to appeal before the tribunal. The crux of the issue presented by the appellant was that Rule 14 could not be applied to an input service distributor as they do not avail cenvat credit but merely distribute it to their manufacturing units. The appellant relied on a previous judgment by the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai to support their argument.

Upon considering the arguments put forth by both sides and examining the records, the tribunal found that the demand was raised against the input service distributor for distributing service credit to their manufacturing units. The tribunal noted that the input service in question, air travel agent service, was deemed inadmissible due to changes in the definition of input service from 1.4.2011. The tribunal clarified that Rule 14 is applicable to individuals who wrongly avail credit, which is recoverable. In this case, the appellant did not avail the credit themselves but distributed it to their manufacturing units, which then utilized the credit. Therefore, any denial of credit should be directed at the manufacturing units that availed the credit, not the input service distributor. The tribunal emphasized that Rule 14 does not encompass input service distributors as they do not avail or utilize cenvat credit for tax payments. Citing the precedent set in the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. case, the tribunal concluded that the demand against the input service distributor was not legally sustainable.

As a result of the analysis, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, highlighting that the denial of cenvat credit and recovery under Rule 14 against the input service distributor lacked legal authority. The judgment underscores the distinction between entities that avail cenvat credit and those that distribute it, clarifying the application of Rule 14 in such scenarios.