2025 (4) TMI 1288 - SCH - Central Excise

Inadmissible CENVAT Credit - short payment of service tax on the commission received in advance - taxability - debit card income - Banking and financial services rendered in Jammu and Kashmir - renting of immovable property. HELD THAT - It appears that the Tribunal looked into the issue as regards the CENVAT credit in detail - there is no discussion as regards the other four issues which were raised by the Revenue. All that has been stated as regards those four issues is that they are covered by case laws. To a certain extent the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue is right that although there is a finding recorded with regard to the CENVAT credit yet there is no discussion at the end of the Tribunal with regard to the four issues. It is submitted that let this order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration so far as the untouched four issues are concerned - thus instead of remanding the matter liberty should be granted to the Revenue to prefer an appropriate application before the Tribunal saying that these four issues have not been discussed in the impugned order and some finding needs to be given one way or the other. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal and subsequently by the Supreme Court in this appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are as follows:

(i) Whether the CENVAT credit claimed by the appellant was admissible or inadmissible under the provisions of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004;

(ii) Whether there was short payment of service tax on commission received in advance amounting to Rs. 4,61,68,312/-;

(iii) Whether debit card income amounting to Rs. 80,93,138/- was liable to service tax;

(iv) Whether banking and financial services rendered in Jammu and Kashmir amounting to Rs. 7,45,263/- were taxable and should be included in the total taxable value;

(v) Whether renting of immovable property was liable to service tax and if so, to what extent.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(i) Admissibility of CENVAT Credit

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue revolves around the interpretation of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which governs the admissibility of input service credit. The Tribunal referred to authoritative precedents including Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. and Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., where the Karnataka High Court elaborated on the nexus required between input services and output services for credit to be admissible.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the impugned order by the Commissioner went beyond the scope of the show-cause notice by denying credit based on the correlation between input and output services rather than strictly on contravention of Rule 9. The Tribunal emphasized the exhaustive definition of "input service" which includes any service having a nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products or business activities.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal examined whether the input services claimed had a nexus or integral connection with the business of manufacture or output services. It relied on the High Court's observations that certain expenses, even if seemingly indirect (such as welfare functions or cultural events), could be integral to running the business and thus qualify for credit.

Application of law to facts: Applying this reasoning, the Tribunal found the appellant's claimed input services admissible for CENVAT credit, as they were connected to the business activities and output services rendered.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that credit was inadmissible due to lack of direct nexus, but the Tribunal rejected this, holding that the nexus test is broader and includes integral connection beyond a strict input-output correlation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that the CENVAT credit claimed was admissible was affirmed, and the Revenue did not appeal against this finding.

(ii) to (v) Other Four Issues: Short Payment of Service Tax on Commission Received in Advance, Debit Card Income, Banking Services in Jammu & Kashmir, and Renting of Immovable Property

Relevant legal framework and precedents: These issues pertain to the scope and valuation of taxable services under the Service Tax regime applicable at the relevant time. The Tribunal's order briefly mentioned reliance on case laws supporting the appellant's submissions but did not elaborate on the legal principles or detailed reasoning.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal's order contains a terse observation in paragraph 11 stating that the submissions of the appellant were acceptable in view of cited case laws, effectively allowing the appeal on these points without detailed discussion.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal did not provide detailed findings or analysis on these issues in the impugned order, leading to the Revenue's contention that these issues were not properly adjudicated.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal's acceptance of the appellant's submissions implies a finding against the Revenue's demand on these four issues, but without detailed reasoning or discussion.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal failed to address these issues adequately, warranting remand for fresh consideration. The Court acknowledged the absence of detailed discussion but declined to remand the matter, instead granting liberty to the Revenue to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal for consideration of these issues.

Conclusion: The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on these four issues and left the matter open for the Tribunal to decide upon receipt of the Revenue's application within eight weeks.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court's significant legal reasoning and core principles established include the following:

On the issue of CENVAT credit, the Court preserved the Tribunal's detailed reasoning, including the following verbatim excerpt from the Karnataka High Court's judgment:

"There cannot be any quarrel regarding the said proposition of law. As stated therein, the definition of input service is more exhaustive than input. Whether it is input or output service there should be nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business activity. At the same time, because of the exhaustive definition of input service, the scope of nexus or integral connection is also explained and in fact is specifically provided.

Therefore to find out whether there is a nexus or integral connection with the manufacturer of final products. We have to keep in mind the exhaustive definition contained in Input service and then the word used therein, that is, the activities relating to business and then decide whether any particular service would constitute input service. The real test is, whether there is a nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product. In the case of the other facilities to the workmen is treated as input service. The State function arranged once in a year, for the welfare of the employees of the industry and in order to protect and preserve the Culture of the State the said function cannot be separated from the business of manufacture of final product. In order to run the industry without any problem from the insiders or from outsiders, incurring of such expenses has unfortunately become a part of running the establishment. If a Multi National Company celebrates the 1st November as a Karnataka Rajyostava Day and spends lavishly for their employees and also sought participation in the said function by the jurisdictional police and on that momentous occasion, the expenses incurred for taking photography or providing Shamiyana service and inaugural of police station it cannot be said that such expenses have no nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final product as well as business of manufacture of final products. Keeping in view the sentiments of the particular State the problems which are faced in all these establishment in a Linguistic State and as a reasonable employer if he wants to satisfy the aspirations of the people in a lawful manner, he cannot be found fault with."

On the other four issues, the Court held that the absence of detailed discussion in the Tribunal's order did not justify remand. Instead, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek appropriate relief before the Tribunal, which was directed to decide such application expeditiously within eight weeks.

The final determinations are:

- The Tribunal's findings on admissibility of CENVAT credit are affirmed and binding, as the Revenue did not challenge these findings.

- The issues relating to short payment of service tax on commission received in advance, debit card income, banking services in Jammu & Kashmir, and renting of immovable property remain open for adjudication by the Tribunal upon application by the Revenue.