2010 (6) TMI 230 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - . On scrutiny of records, it was revealed that the appellants had availed and utilized CENVAT credit on account of Service Tax in respect of certain taxable services consumed by them in the course of their business activity. A show-cause notice denying credit in respect of these taxable services on the ground that these were not input services eligible for service tax credit. Demand confirmed on the ground that appellant not submitted conclusive supporting documentary evidence to justify claim. Held that - as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellants shall be al lowed to take credit of the Service Tax paid by them on the input services, which may be utilized by them for payment of any duty of excise on any final product or any Service Tax on any output services. Matter need verification of invoices showing purpose of use of input services. No need for segregation of credit amount used in manufacturing and input services.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Cenvat credit on input services.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and providing output services, appealed against the disallowance of Cenvat credit on certain taxable services by the Commissioner. The denial was based on the grounds that the appellants failed to segregate the total Service Tax credit availed and lacked conclusive supporting documentary evidence.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allows manufacturers and providers of taxable services to take credit of Service Tax, which can be utilized for excise duty on final products or service tax on output services. He contended that there is no rule mandating segregation of Cenvat credit for input services, and the denial based on Rule 9(5) was incorrect as it pertains to inputs, not input services. The advocate presented invoices and detailed replies to justify the Cenvat credit claim, emphasizing the issue revolves around statutory interpretation and no penalty should be levied.

3. The respondent contended that the appellants did not qualify for Cenvat credit on the input services in question due to their failure to provide the purpose of utilization and supporting documents, as requested by the lower authorities. The lack of evidence led to the denial of Cenvat credit.

4. Upon examination, it was noted that Rule 3 allows for Cenvat credit on input services for excise duty or service tax on output services. However, Rule 9(6) requires maintaining proper records for input services, with the burden of proof on the manufacturer. The Commissioner observed that the input services might have been used for non-official purposes, necessitating clarification from the appellants regarding the purpose of utilization.

5. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' request for segregation of Service Tax credit was unwarranted, as there is no provision for such segregation in the Cenvat Credit Rules. The critical aspect is determining the purpose for which the services were availed, which the appellants failed to provide. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the purpose of input service use without requiring segregation, and the appellants were directed to provide invoice-wise explanations within a specified timeframe.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case for verification of the purpose of input service use, emphasizing the absence of a need for segregation of amounts, and no penalties were deemed necessary in this instance.