2022 (9) TMI 1123 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - iput services or not -- Maintenance or Repairs service - Consulting Engineer Service - Management Consultant Service - Erection Commissioning service - Information Technology services received from a foreign service provider - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - This issue was correctly decided by the Adjudicating Authority inasmuch as Section 66A was added retrospectively in Rule 3 for allowing Cenvat credit. Whether the services in question are admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l), this issue was never raised in the show cause notice. Therefore, it cannot be expected from the Adjudicating Authority to pass order on the issue which is beyond the scope of show cause notice. It is settled law that any issue which is not flowing from the show cause notice being beyond the show cause notice, need not be addressed by the authority. There are no error on the part of the Adjudicating Authority for not considering the issue of admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit for service tax paid under Section 66A.
2. Admissibility of input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax under Section 66A:
The case involved a show cause notice proposing a demand for Cenvat credit of service tax paid under Section 66A for various services received from a foreign service provider. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand citing retrospective inclusion of Section 66A in Rule 3 for allowing Cenvat credit. The Revenue contended that the Authority should have assessed if the services were admissible input services under Rule 2(l). The Assistant Commissioner argued for remand on this basis. However, the Counsel for the respondent emphasized that the show cause notice did not raise the issue of input service admissibility, relying on legal precedents to support their argument. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice specifically questioned the eligibility of Cenvat credit due to payment under Section 66A, not the admissibility of input services. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority's decision was upheld as it correctly addressed the raised issue, and it was not required to consider matters beyond the notice scope.

2. Admissibility of Input Services under Rule 2(l):
The Tribunal determined that the issue of whether the services in question qualified as admissible input services under Rule 2(l) was not part of the show cause notice. As per legal principles, matters not arising from the notice need not be deliberated upon by the authority. The judgments cited by the respondent's Counsel supported the contention that the Adjudicating Authority appropriately addressed the issue raised in the notice. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the services for which the Cenvat credit was claimed prima facie appeared to be input services. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, emphasizing that issues beyond the scope of the show cause notice need not be addressed. The judgment highlighted the importance of focusing on the specific matters raised in the notice and affirmed the eligibility of Cenvat credit under Section 66A while dismissing the Revenue's appeal.