2018 (8) TMI 1591 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - appellant provided Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service, Management Consultant Service and Business Auxiliary Service - denial of CENVAT credit on account of nexus - Held that - The very same issue has been decided by this Court, in the assessee s own case M/s. Talentpro India HR Pvt. Ltd. Versus CST, Chennai 2016 (10) TMI 1221 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that appellant also says that requirement of maintenance service of the building of the appellant who is a man power recruitment agency, cannot be ruled out - No case is made out by the Revenue with regard to changes in law or facts and circumstances from the period of dispute on hand vis- -vis the earlier decision of this Tribunal. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit on maintenance service.
2. Allegations of wrong availment of Cenvat credit.
3. Adjudication of interest and penalty under Sections 75 and 76.
4. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I).

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a service provider under various categories, availed Cenvat credit on input services for providing output services. The Revenue alleged wrong availment of credit on maintenance service, leading to the issuance of Statement of Demand. The appellant rebutted the allegations, but the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit, imposed interest under Section 75, and levied a penalty under Section 76 in Order-in-Original No. 3/2017. The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), who rejected the appeal, prompting the appellant to appeal before the forum.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the services for which credit was taken were covered under the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision in the appellant's favor, the counsel contended that the issue had already been decided in their favor for an earlier period. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative argued that the claimed input service was not covered by the amended provision of Rule 2(l) and that the appellant failed to establish the nexus between input and output services.

3. After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, it was observed that the appellant's business required computers for providing output services. The period under dispute was subsequent to the earlier decision in the appellant's favor. The Tribunal noted that the same issue had been previously decided in the appellant's own case by the Tribunal. No new facts or changes in law were presented by the Revenue for the current period. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant should succeed based on the previous decision, granting consequential relief.

4. The Tribunal pronounced the order on 13.06.2018, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the Cenvat credit on maintenance services for providing output services, as the issue had already been settled in the appellant's favor in a previous decision by the Tribunal.