2018 (6) TMI 1132 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - Renting of Immovable Property Services - denial on account of nexus with the manufacturing activity - Held that - Appellant has failed to produce the documents before him justifying the claim of cenvat credit and other material facts which are in dispute - appellant submits that he has got all the records and the documents to produce before the adjudicating authority if the matter is remanded back to the original authority to examine the claim of the appellant afresh. The present case needs to be remanded back to the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appellant availed cenvat credit on Renting of Immovable Property Services.
- Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant.
- Interpretation of 'input service' under Cenvat Credit Rules.
- Appellant's contention regarding the manufacturing premises and job work.
- Demand of cenvat credit for specific periods.
- Lack of documents provided by the appellant.
- Remand of the case to the original authority.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal regarding availing cenvat credit on Renting of Immovable Property Services. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, contended that the premises where the service was availed were used for job work directly related to manufacturing. The appellant argued that the definition of 'input service' includes services used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products. The appellant cited various case laws to support their interpretation of the term 'input service.' The appellant also addressed the demand for cenvat credit for specific periods, emphasizing compliance with service tax payments and registration requirements.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted the wide connotation of the term 'used by a manufacturer' and the necessity of a broad interpretation. The appellant emphasized the relationship between the rented premises and the manufacturing process, asserting the eligibility of cenvat credit. On the contrary, the learned AR defended the impugned order, arguing that the services were not utilized by the appellant in their production or clearance activities. The AR raised concerns about the lack of documentation supporting the appellant's claim and compliance with credit transfer regulations.

After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Judicial Member found that the appellant had not provided adequate documents to justify the cenvat credit claim. However, considering the appellant's assurance of possessing relevant records, the Judicial Member decided to remand the case to the original authority. The remand was directed to assess the appellant's eligibility for cenvat credit for specific periods and to examine the relationship between the appellant's units for proportional credit allocation. The Judicial Member emphasized the need for the original authority to follow principles of natural justice and allow the appellant to produce supporting documents during the re-examination process.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with an opportunity to substantiate their claim with necessary documents before the original authority. The decision aimed to ensure a thorough examination of the appellant's eligibility for cenvat credit in light of the presented arguments and legal provisions.