2023 (7) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Manpower Recruitment Service - arranging for bringing managers in the factory for supervising/looking after the manufacturing operations - period from June, 2015 to April, 2016 - HELD THAT - Although the said Order-in-Appeal dated 22.2.2017 on identical issue was cited by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) herein also but the said authority misdirected itself, that the period involved in that Order-in-Appeal dated 22.2.2017 was upto the year 2010, whereas infact the period involved therein was from April, 2013 to September, 2014 i.e. period after the amendment and that is why for the next period i.e. May, 2016 to June, 2017 (i.e. the period immediately subsequent to the period involved herein) the Adjudicating Authority therein while relying upon the said Order-in- Appeal dated 22.2.2017 has dropped the demand against the appellant for the very same services in issue therein. Time and again it has been held by the Tribunal that the revenue is not permitted to take contrary view on identical issue. If they are permitted to do so then the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary. A similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in the matter of VISTEX ASIA PACIFIC P LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI SOUTH 2023 (7) TMI 52 - CESTAT MUMBAI . As the issue has already been settled in favour of the appellants by the authorities below for different period, therefore, the issue involved herein is decided in favour of the appellant as there are no justification to take a contrary view. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the rejection of Cenvat Credit on Manpower Service by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & CX, Nashik.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Availment of Cenvat credit on Manpower Recruitment Service
The appellant contested the rejection of Cenvat Credit on Manpower Service, specifically office boy and driver services, essential for smooth manufacturing operations. The appellant argued that these services fall under the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Previous orders in favor of the appellant for similar services were cited. The Revenue, however, claimed that the disputed services do not meet the criteria of an input service. The Tribunal noted that a previous Order-in-Appeal on the same issue had been misinterpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to an incorrect decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue cannot take a contrary view on the same issue, as it would create confusion and inconsistency in the law. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant based on previous decisions and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal related to the availment of Cenvat credit on Manpower Recruitment Service.