2018 (8) TMI 78 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - pest control services - telephone services - repair and maintenance of air conditioner - export related services - Held that - It is not the case of Revenue that appellant had used/utilised the disputed services for the personal benefit or consumption of its employees. Since the disputed services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and having nexus with the ultimate final product manufactured by the appellant, CENVAT Credit on the disputed services cannot be denied by the department - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid on pest control, telephone, repair and maintenance of air conditioner, and export-related services.

In the present case, the issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT Credit to the appellant for service tax paid on various taxable services such as pest control, telephone, repair and maintenance of air conditioner, and export-related services. The authorities had refused the credit on the grounds that these services did not qualify as "input services" as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Regarding the pest control service, the appellant argued that it was essential to maintain cleanliness and a healthy environment in the factory premises, thus preventing pests from entering and breeding. For telephone services, the appellant contended that they were used for effective communication and negotiation between company employees, suppliers, and customers, directly related to the manufacturing activity. Concerning the repair and maintenance of air conditioners, the appellant asserted that they were crucial for the smooth functioning of machines in the factory, supporting their claim with relevant tribunal decisions.

The definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stipulated that services used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of excisable goods should qualify as input services. It excluded services primarily for personal use or consumption by employees. The appellant demonstrated that the disputed services were utilized in or in relation to the manufacturing process without personal employee benefit. As there was a clear nexus between these services and the final product manufactured, the CENVAT Credit could not be rightfully denied. Previous tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position, recognizing pest control services and telephone charges for employees as eligible for CENVAT benefit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and overturned it, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted that the disputed services were integral to the manufacturing process and directly linked to the final product, making them eligible for CENVAT Credit.