2023 (12) TMI 673 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input service - clearing services - consultant engineering services - courier service - premium paid on insurance of bus / van / two wheelers - motor vehicle services rendered for servicing van - advertising services taken for purchase of land - business Auxiliary services - denial on the ground that this services are not in relation to manufacturing of goods - HELD THAT - It is found that even though the activity related to business activity is removed appellant being a manufacturer all the activities right from procurement of the raw material, manufacture of goods and sale of the goods is used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the over all manufacturing activity. Therefore, even though the specific entry that is activity related to business has been removed the services, which are otherwise required for the overall business activity of the manufacture of goods are admissible input service. In many judgments as cited by the learned Counsel even post 01.04.2011, the services have been held as admissible input services and credit has been allowed - reliance can be placed in RMZ INFOTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST 2021 (11) TMI 1108 - CESTAT BANGALORE , M/S. OLAM INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI 2022 (9) TMI 1156 - CESTAT CHENNAI and M/S. DEEPAK FERTILIZERS AND PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2013 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Thus, all the services involved in the present appeal of the assessee have been held in one or more judgments as admissible input service and credit was allowed. Hence, the credit claimed by the assessee in their appeal is admissible, accordingly demand on those services is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal regarding entitlement for CENVAT Credit on various services denied by Commissioner (Appeal).
2. Revenue's appeal involving a specific amount.

Issue 1: Entitlement for CENVAT Credit on Various Services:
The appeal involved the question of whether the appellant was entitled to CENVAT Credit for services including air travel agent services, consultant engineering services, courier services, insurance premium on vehicles, motor vehicle services, advertising services, and business auxiliary services. The Commissioner (Appeal) denied the Service Tax on these services, stating they were not related to the manufacturing of goods. The appellant argued that despite the removal of business activity from the definition of input service, the services were still essential for the overall manufacturing activity. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant contended that the services were admissible input services. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that even post the removal of business activity from the definition, the services remained necessary for the manufacturing process. Various judgments were cited to support the admissibility of different services, leading to the conclusion that the issue was settled in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the credit claimed by the appellant was deemed admissible, and the demand on those services was set aside.

Issue 2: Revenue's Appeal Involving a Specific Amount:
The revenue's appeal concerned an amount less than Rs. 50,00,000. The appellant argued that as per the Government's Litigation Policy, appeals involving less than Rs. 50,00,000 should not be filed before CESTAT. Both parties acknowledged that the amount in question fell below the threshold. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed on the grounds of the Government's Litigation Policy, while the appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, leading to the disposal of the case.

This summary outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision on each matter.