2009 (10) TMI 412 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on input services while availing value based exemption SSI unit exemption under notification no. 8/2003 - the credit has been denied on the ground that under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services cannot be allowed when the finished products are exempted products and attract nil rate of duty. - It is his submission that Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 specifically provides that Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods is not available and there is no mention of input services in the Notification Held that Notification specifically provides for denial of credit of duty paid on inputs, but does not provide for denial of Cenvat credit on input service. It has to be noted at this stage that in respect of capital goods also, the credit is allowed even during the period of exemption to SSI Manufacturers and this is because Notification does not provide for denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods. Therefore, it is obvious that if the intention was to deny the benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services to the assessee availing SSI exemption, input services would have been specifically excluded, as in the case of inputs. Since the Exemption Notification does not put such condition, the appellants are eligible for the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid during the period of exemption under SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2003-C.E.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing RCC Poles, availed small scale industries exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. A show cause notice was issued proposing to deny Cenvat credit of service tax paid during the exemption period. The impugned order confirmed the demand for Cenvat credit with interest. The appellant contended that the denial was based on Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, stating that credit on service tax paid on input services cannot be allowed for exempted products. However, the Notification did not mention input services, leading to eligibility for Cenvat credit.

The dispute revolved around whether the denied credit was on inputs or input services. The Assistant Commissioner's Order-in-Original mentioned that the credit was on inputs used in manufacturing pre-stressed concrete poles. Despite the contention that the credit was on inputs, the Order-in-Original discussed the admissibility of service tax credit, indicating that the denial pertained to Cenvat credit on input services.

The Tribunal examined the matter, emphasizing that Rule 6 applies when the assessee deals with dutiable and exempted goods or services. Since the Notification did not exclude Cenvat credit on input services, unlike for inputs, the appellants were deemed eligible for the credit. Notably, even capital goods credit was allowed during the exemption period for SSI Manufacturers due to the absence of specific denial in the Notification. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellants, emphasizing that the denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid during the exemption period was not justified as the Notification did not explicitly exclude Cenvat credit on input services. The ruling clarified the eligibility of the appellants for the Cenvat credit, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief.