2018 (6) TMI 636 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs/ input services - service tax paid on rental charges for their Mumbai office - case of Revenue is that the said services of renting of immovable property were not received within the manufacturing premises of the appellant and therefore the authorities below have rightly disallowed the credit - Held that - The Mumbai office operates as a procurement office for the Hosur factory. Therefore, procurement of orders / products being the starting point for the manufacturing activities is performed at the Mumbai office without which there can be no manufacturing activity at its factory in Hosur. The Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. 2013 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT had held that the assessee would be eligible for credit on the services used in relation to storage of inputs outside the factory. Denial of credit is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on rental charges for Mumbai office.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Pharma products, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A show cause notice was issued proposing to disallow credit on service tax paid on rental charges for their Mumbai office for the period January 2012 to March 2015. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Mumbai office operates as a procurement/marketing office for the appellant, essential for receiving orders for the manufacturing unit in Hosur. Activities at the Mumbai office are directly or indirectly related to the manufacturing activity at the Hosur factory, making the rental charges eligible as input services. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument. The counsel also raised the issue of limitation, stating that the demand is time-barred due to proper disclosure of facts in their returns and accounts.

The respondent's representative supported the findings disallowing the credit, stating that the services of renting immovable property were not received within the manufacturing premises of the appellant.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the appellant's explanation that the Mumbai office's activities were crucial for the manufacturing process at the Hosur factory. Citing relevant legal definitions and precedents, the Tribunal found that the branch offices used for procurement of orders and delivery of goods, as well as for provision of other services, qualified as input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments supporting the eligibility of such services for credit, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the denial of credit on rental charges for the Mumbai office was unjustified. The decision was based on the nature of use of the branch offices, which were essential for the manufacturing process, and in line with legal interpretations and precedents supporting the eligibility of such services as input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.