2022 (3) TMI 451 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Technical Testing and Analysis - Consulting Engineering - period 01/06/2008 to 31/01/2010 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It is clear that factually the auditor as well as the authorities below started the entire matter on a wrong premise and mis-guided themselves by this fact that the Appellant availed the services in issue for the purpose of establishing new plant which was dropped later on. Whereas the correct fact is that it was used for new mines at the existing plant at Rabariyawas only. Since, the Appellants are into the business of manufacturing Cement, therefore lime stone is mandatory for that business and to check the quality of lime stone availment of input services like Technical Testing and Analysis as well as Consulting Engineer Services are must. The definition of input service is very wide and covers not only services, which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but also includes various services used in relation to the business of manufacture of final products, whether, prior to the manufacture of final products or after the manufacture of final products. To put it differently, the definition of input service is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The record that the demand is for the period from June, 2008 to 31/01/2010, whereas the show cause notice was issued only on 27/01/2011, i.e. after almost beyond one year, by invoking the extended period on the ground of willful suppression on the part of the Appellant. Whereas from the records, there is nothing found which can substantiate the allegation of the department about wilful suppression. Learned Counsel have taken me through various invoices during the period in issue, which have been placed on record. From the perusal of the said invoices also it is clear that the services were availed for the existing plant at Rajariyawas and not for any new or proposed plant. Therefore, Revenue is not justified in denying the benefit of Credit to the Appellant. The issue involved herein is answered in favour of the Appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Appellant were entitled to avail Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on the Services of 'Technical Testing and Analysis' and 'Consulting Engineer Services'?

Analysis:
The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Cement and Clinker, availed Cenvat credit on various inputs and services. The dispute arose when the department alleged that the Appellant availed input service credit on services not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The Appellant incurred expenses for Technical Testing and Analysis, Consulting Engineer Services for a limestone deposit intended for an upcoming plant. The department issued a Show-Cause Notice invoking the extended period to recover the credit amount along with interest and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner in the impugned order.

The Appellant contended that the expenses were for developing new mines at the existing unit and not for a new proposed unit. They argued that the services were essential for evaluating limestone quality, a major raw material for manufacturing Cement and Clinker. The Appellant capitalized the expenditure in their books but later accounted it as revenue expenditure due to dropping the new plant proposal. They provided invoices and purchase orders to prove the services were used for the existing unit. The Appellant highlighted the necessity of the services for their business activities and criticized the authorities for misinterpreting the facts.

The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the case, emphasizing the incorrect premise on which the authorities based their decisions. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'inputs' and the inclusive definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It noted that the services in question were essential for the manufacturing business of the Appellant, as highlighted by previous judicial decisions. The Tribunal found no evidence of willful suppression by the Appellant and concluded that the services were used for the existing plant, justifying the Appellant's entitlement to the credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the Appeal with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting the law and considering the essentiality of services for business activities in determining Cenvat credit eligibility.