2012 (6) TMI 494 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT credit on stockbroker s service - Input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - stockbroker s service used for the purpose of disposal of the shares held in another company Held that - The activity of sale of shares had any nexus with the business of the appellant would depend on how the sale proceeds were applied and the Working Director s affidavit does not bring out a clear picture as it contains only general averments - neither in the affidavit nor in the MOA is there anything to indicate that the shares held in another company were sold for accomplishing any purpose integrally connected with the business of the appellant denial of CENVAT credit on stockbroker s service as service was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods, the burden lay on the noticee to establish that the said service was covered by the inclusive part of the input service, if not by the main part - that the expression such as in the definition of input service is exhaustive and is restricted to the services named therein against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether stockbroker's service used for disposal of shares qualifies as an 'input service' under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appeals revolve around determining if the stockbroker's service used by the appellant for selling shares held in another company qualifies as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The department alleged no connection between the service and the manufacture of finished goods, proposing recovery of CENVAT credit amounts with interest and penalties. The original and appellate authorities upheld the demand, leading to the present appeals.

2. The appellant argued that the service was integral to their business activities, citing an affidavit from a Working Director detailing the utilization of sale proceeds for operational purposes. The appellant aimed to establish a connection between the service and their business activities, referring to relevant case laws and the company's Memorandum of Association.

3. The appellant contended that the sale of shares was incidental to their main business, supported by references to case laws and the company's Memorandum of Association. However, the affidavit lacked specifics on how the sale proceeds were utilized in activities integral to the business, leading to a lack of clarity on the nexus between the sale of shares and the business operations.

4. The department reiterated the findings of the original and appellate authorities, emphasizing the necessity of establishing an integral connection between the service and the business activities of the appellant. Case laws were cited where CENVAT credit was denied due to the absence of a clear nexus between the service and the business.

5. The appellant argued that the department's contentions exceeded the scope of the show-cause notices, focusing solely on the lack of connection between the service and the manufacture of goods.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and emphasized the importance of establishing an integral connection between the sale of shares and the appellant's business activities. The lack of clarity in the affidavit and Memorandum of Association regarding the utilization of sale proceeds for business purposes led to the dismissal of the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on the stockbroker's service.

7. The Tribunal highlighted the burden on the appellant to establish the nexus between the service and their business activities, concluding that the appellant failed to do so. The department's reliance on the High Court's interpretation of 'input service' was deemed appropriate, and the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit was rejected.

8. The judgment in a related case did not support the appellant's claim, as the circumstances differed from the present case. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a clear integral connection between the service and the business activities to qualify for CENVAT credit.

9. Referring to another case, the Tribunal reiterated the importance of activities being integrally connected with the business to claim CENVAT credit. As the appellant failed to establish a clear connection between the sale of shares and their business activities, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order denying the CENVAT credit, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.