2019 (12) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Business Auxiliary Service - BAS (Export of Goods) - Consulting Engineers - Landscaping services and Warehousing services - Housekeeping service - Fabrication and Boiler Services - Bio Medical Waste Disposal Service - Pest Control used in canteen, welding of canteen tables, servicing of steam boilers - denial of credit availed on certain input services on the premise that they do not have nexus to the manufacturing activity - HELD THAT - The definition of input or input services in the CCR is very much wide and as long as the primary conditions like, use of input or input service in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or output service is not disputed, the credit cannot be denied - Moreover, the term in or in relation is very wide and covers the entire gamut of activities undertaken by the appellants. Credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on certain input services by the department.
- Adjudication of show cause notices by the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner.
- Appeals filed by the appellants against the denial of credit.
- Disputed input services in different appeals.
- Applicability of judgments and usage of input services.
- Arguments presented by the appellants and the department.
- Analysis of the issue and decision by the Tribunal.

The case involved the denial of cenvat credit on specific input services by the department, leading to show cause notices issued to the appellants. The Commissioner and Joint Commissioner adjudicated the notices, with subsequent appeals filed by the appellants challenging the denial of credit. The disputed input services included Business Auxiliary Service, Consulting Engineers, Landscaping services, Warehousing services, Housekeeping service, Fabrication and Boiler Services, Bio Medical Waste Disposal Service, and Pest Control. The appellants sought to recover a total cenvat credit amount of ?73,36,428 + ?50,03,454 through the impugned orders.

In the detailed analysis of the input services under dispute, the appellants presented a table showing the usage and relevant judgments for each service. The Tribunal examined the issue and found that the definition of "input" or "input services" in the CCR was broad. As long as the primary condition of the use of input or input service in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or output service was met, the credit could not be denied. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "in or in relation" encompassed the entire range of activities undertaken by the appellants. Therefore, based on the judgments cited and the interpretation of the relevant provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the credit of the disputed input services was available to the appellants.

During the proceedings, the department reiterated the findings of the original adjudication orders. After hearing both sides and examining the submissions and records, the Tribunal determined that the issue raised in the impugned orders was settled by the cited judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting consequential reliefs as per the law. The decision was pronounced in court, providing a favorable outcome for the appellants regarding the disputed cenvat credit on input services.