2018 (7) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - demurrage charges - it was alleged that appellant availed the cenvat credit of service tax paid for services which were in the nature of penalty and cannot be treated as input service - Held that - The service provider would charge penalty or demurrage for failure to receive the guranteed quantity for a certain period. On perusal of the agreement, it is clear that the said charges are related to the service provided by the service provider - the service rendered by M/s IMC Ltd. is in respect of manufacturing of excisable goods - denial of credit unjustified. In the present case, the appellant availed MS pipeline facility belonging to M/s IMC Ltd. The service provider paid the tax which cannot be denied and therefore, the availment of cenvat credit by the recipient unit cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of cenvat credit for services classified as penalty
- Interpretation of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Jurisdiction over classification by excise authorities

Analysis:

The appeal involved a dispute regarding the availment of cenvat credit by the Appellant for services categorized as penalty under an agreement with a service provider. The Revenue contended that the services were not rendered and were penalty in nature, thus disqualifying the Appellant from claiming cenvat credit. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of a demand for cenvat credit along with interest and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the Appellant to file the present appeal.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the services availed by the Appellant were penalty in nature and did not qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Appellant argued that the services were related to the manufacturing of excisable goods and fell within the inclusive definition of input service. The Appellant highlighted the agreement with the service provider, emphasizing that the charges were connected to the services provided. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support the Appellant's position, emphasizing that the recipient's excise authorities cannot challenge the classification adopted by the input supplier's jurisdiction.

In light of the agreement terms and the nature of the services provided, the Tribunal determined that the denial of cenvat credit was unjustified. The Appellant had utilized the pipeline facility of the service provider, who had paid the necessary service tax. Since the service tax payment was not disputed by the department, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the Appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the actual services provided and the jurisdictional limitations in challenging classifications adopted by input suppliers.