2019 (2) TMI 1479 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - common input services were used in the repair and maintenance of windmill situated away from their factory during the period March, 2015 to May, 2015 - non-maintenance of separate account of use of common input services - Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Applicability of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 squarely rests on the fact that whether the appellant availed CENVAT Credit on input services and used it for providing exempted services - In the present case, demand notices have been confirmed on the premise that the appellant have utilized common input services in the manufacture of dutiable goods and maintenance and repair of windmill. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) categorically recorded the findings that the appellant failed to produce evidence to substantiate that credit availed on input services were not used exclusively in repair and maintenance of Wind Mills used for generation of electricity, which the appellant controverted before this Tribunal placing evidences. I am of the view that these evidences need to be scrutinized since not produced before the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the use of common input services in the repair and maintenance of windmills
- Evidence required to establish that credit availed on input services were not used exclusively in repair and maintenance of windmills
- Scrutiny of evidences not produced before the adjudicating authority
- Setting aside of impugned orders and remand to the adjudicating authority

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, availed CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs and Service Tax paid on various input services. Demand notices were issued to them under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for allegedly using common input services in the repair and maintenance of windmills away from their factory. The demands were confirmed with interest and penalty, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

The consultant for the appellant argued that they had sufficient evidence to prove that the input services on which credit was availed were not used in the maintenance and repair of windmills. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant failed to prove the non-usage of common input services in the maintenance and repair of windmills.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, emphasizing the need to establish whether the appellant availed credit on input services and used them for providing exempted services. The Tribunal noted that the appellant contended that no input services were used in the repair and maintenance of windmills for electricity generation and production of excisable goods, contrary to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the adjudicating authority for further scrutiny of the evidence presented by the appellant, which was not produced before the original adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a detailed examination of the evidence provided by the appellant. The Tribunal kept all issues open for further consideration, modifying the Commissioner (Appeals) order accordingly. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for a more comprehensive review of the evidence presented.