2013 (11) TMI 1087 - AT - Central Excise

Improper Invoices Denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 9(2) of CC Rules 2004 Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Input service cannot be denied for improper documents in terms of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - For the management consultancy service availed by the head office - the applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing - the applicants are entitled for input service credit - it is not disputed that service tax has not been paid and services have not been availed Prima facie the applicants are entitled for waiver of pre-deposit stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT credit on certain services denied due to improper documents and lack of nexus with manufacturing activity.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on services such as management fee and common sharing of services from their head office. The denial of credit amounting to Rs.73,76,990/- was based on the grounds that the invoices used for claiming the credit were not considered proper documents under Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, it was argued that the management fees did not have a nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant's factory, and the common sharing of services was questioned as the invoice was issued from a sister unit rather than the head office.

The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and noted that in a previous case of the appellant, unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted by the Tribunal for a subsequent period. It was highlighted that the denial of input service credit based on improper documents, as per Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, was not sustainable. Referring to the 'management consultancy service' availed by the head office, the Tribunal relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd., stating that the appellant, being engaged in the business of manufacturing, was entitled to input service credit. Regarding the common sharing of input services, it was observed that service tax had not been paid, and services were not availed. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to a waiver of pre-deposit, and the requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed demands was waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal process.

Furthermore, the Registry was directed to tag the current appeal with other related appeals for final hearing, ensuring a consolidated approach to the resolution of the issues at hand. The judgment, pronounced and dictated in open court, provided a comprehensive analysis of the grounds for granting the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in favor of the appellant based on the legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.