2012 (4) TMI 134 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service - Held that - the appellant cannot claim CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service -Commissioner vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd 2010 (9) TMI 19 - High Court of Bombay in favour of Revenue. Air travel service, rent-a-cab service, cleaning/house-keeping service - Held that - a reasonable opportunity should be given to the appellant to establish, before the original authority, the requisite nexus between the business of manufacture of goods and the services which are claimed to be input services for the purpose of CENVAT credit. CHA Service Held that - the port of export was held to be the place of removal of the goods exported. It is not deniable that CHA s service was availed by the appellant for export of their goods, which was a part of their business. The requisite nexus between the service and the business of the company stands established. Hence CENVAT credit is admissible on the CHA service to the appellant. Penalty-related issue Held that - degree of offence of irregular availment of CENVAT credit will be ascertained only by the original authority pursuant to this order appellant after giving them an opportunity of being heard.

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit on various services; Interpretation of input services under CENVAT Credit Rules; Nexus between services availed and business activities; Applicability of penalties under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004.

Analysis:

1. Denial of CENVAT Credit on Various Services:
The appellant challenged the denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering, air travel, rent-a-cab, cleaning/house-keeping, and CHA services for different periods. The lower authorities contended that these services did not meet the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Penalties were imposed for irregular availment of CENVAT credit. The appellant argued for the eligibility of these services as input services based on various legal precedents.

2. Interpretation of Input Services under CENVAT Credit Rules:
Regarding outdoor catering service, the appellant maintained a canteen and claimed that the cost of food was part of the assessable value of goods manufactured. Legal arguments were presented citing relevant judgments to support the claim for CENVAT credit. However, the tribunal held that the appellant, not employing 250 or more workers, could not claim the benefit of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service. The nexus between services and the business of manufacturing goods was a crucial factor in determining eligibility for CENVAT credit.

3. Nexus Between Services Availed and Business Activities:
For air travel, rent-a-cab, and cleaning/house-keeping services, the appellant asserted that these were used for business purposes. The tribunal found a lack of evidence establishing a clear connection between these services and the business activities of the company. A remand was ordered to allow the appellant an opportunity to demonstrate the required nexus before the original authority.

4. Applicability of Penalties under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004:
The issue of penalties under Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004 was also addressed. The appellant contended that no penalty should be imposed for wrongly availing CENVAT credit on input services. However, the tribunal noted the provision for penalties for irregular availment of CENVAT credit and stated that the determination of the penalty amount would be made by the original authority after further proceedings.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeals, holding CENVAT credit admissible on CHA service but inadmissible on outdoor catering service. The eligibility of CENVAT credit on other services was subject to further review. The penalty amount for irregular availment of CENVAT credit would be decided by the original authority after due process.