2019 (1) TMI 771 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Maintenance Charges - it is alleged that the said maintenance service is not used by the appellant in or in relation to manufacture of final products or clearance of final products up to place of removal - Held that - It is the admitted fact that the manufacturing activity of appellant is carried from the premises as are taken on rent. It is apparent from record that the impugned maintenance charges are the part of lease/ rent charges. M/s AKVN i.e. the leaser is also charging the service charges in their lease bills raised for lease amount and maintenance amount. Though the maintenance is for roads, street lights, drainage, etc. i.e. for facilities being provided beyond the manufacturing/ factory premises of appellant but the simultaneous fact is that such services are charged on the basis of per square meter of business premises occupied by the appellant - The lease/ rent charge are the eligible inputs. These charges are indirectly related to business and they fall in the main part of the definition of input services. The findings of Order-in-Appeal are therefore held incorrect - there is no apparent intention of tax evasion on part of appellants - penalty also not levied - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of cenvat credit on maintenance charges for a business premises taken on rent.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed cenvat credit on maintenance charges paid to the lessor for a business premises taken on rent. The department alleged the credit was not admissible as the maintenance service was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or clearance of final products. The demand was confirmed by the Order-in-Original and the Commissioner(Appeals).

2. The appellant argued that input services need not be availed within the factory premises to be eligible. They contended that the maintenance charges were essential for the business of manufacturing excisable goods and were related to the manufacture of goods, thus constituting eligible input services. They relied on legal precedents to support their argument.

3. The central issue raised was whether maintenance charges for common areas of a business premises taken on rent qualify as an eligible input service under the relevant definition.

4. The definition of Input Service during the period in question included services directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. It also encompassed services related to modernisation, renovation, repairs of premises, advertisement, market research, storage, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, and other specified activities.

5. The Tribunal found that the maintenance charges were part of the lease/rent charges for the business premises. Even though the services were provided beyond the factory premises, they were charged based on the area occupied by the appellant. The Tribunal held that maintenance charges were indirectly related to the business and fell within the main part of the definition of input services. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that without maintenance of the premises, the business could not function properly.

6. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and confirming that there was no intention of tax evasion. Consequently, no penalty was imposed, and the appeal was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented, the legal framework applied, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in the case.