2024 (1) TMI 630 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Service Tax paid on the bank charges - duty paying documents - certificate issued by the bank is an eligible document for availing credit or not - such bank charges have nexus with the manufacturing of final product or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the definition under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it is clear that banking services are included in the said definition. Further, such activities fall within the definition as per the phrase activities relating to business - The period is prior to 01.04.2011, before the amendment of the definition of input service . The disallowance of credit is without any basis - the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible for the CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on the bank charges.

Facts:
The appellant, a manufacturer of "Diamond Grinding Wheels" under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 68042110 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, had taken CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on bank charges based on a certificate issued by the bank authorities.

Decision:
The Department contended that the bank certificate is not an eligible document for availing credit and that bank charges do not have a nexus with the manufacturing of the final product. A Show Cause Notice was issued, and after due process, the demand for wrongly availed CENVAT Credit was confirmed along with interest and penalties.

Arguments:
The appellant argued that the banking services were availed in connection with their manufacturing activity, falling within the definition of "input service." The appellant contended that the certificate issued by the bank, along with details of the Service Tax paid, was sufficient evidence for availing the credit.

Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the definition under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which includes banking services as part of the definition of "input service." The Tribunal noted that the banking activities were related to the business of the appellant, and the disallowance of credit was found to be without any basis.

Conclusion:
As a result, the impugned order confirming the demand for wrongly availed CENVAT Credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.