2015 (11) TMI 651 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Service provided beyond place of removal - Held that - Inputs service distributor is the office of manufacturer or producer of final product. Therefore, it cannot be said that input service distributor is not the manufacturer. It merely means office of the manufacturer and as per Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules which provides manner of distribution of Cenvat credit - As the services has been availed at the head office and same is a part of the appellant itself as a manufacturer. Therefore, I hold that appellant has availed the input service credit correctly. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat credit for rent paid for head office premises by ISD.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit for rent paid for the head office premises by ISD. The issue revolved around the premise that services were availed outside the factory and not by the appellant itself. The Tribunal considered the submissions and examined the case to determine the entitlement of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit. The appellant's office was located in Mumbai, and the definition of 'input service distributor' was crucial in this context. The Tribunal highlighted that an input service distributor is the office of the manufacturer or producer of final products, emphasizing that it does not imply a separate entity from the manufacturer. Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules outlined the manner of distribution of credit by an input service distributor, setting limitations on the distribution. It was noted that there were only two restrictions specified in Rule 7: the credit should not exceed the amount of service tax paid and should not be attributable to services used in units exclusively engaged in exempted goods or services.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd., where it was clarified that the availability of credit is related to the manufacturer or provider of output services as a whole, not restricted to any specific unit. The judgment emphasized that the restrictions imposed by the Department on the distribution of Service Tax credit were not supported by the relevant rules. The Tribunal highlighted that any additional restrictions would require an amendment to the rules. The judgment was challenged by the Revenue before the High Court of Karnataka, which reiterated the definition of an input service distributor and the manner of credit distribution as per Rule 7. The High Court emphasized that a manufacturer with multiple units must register as a service provider to collect and distribute input service tax paid across all units. The Court reiterated the two limitations on credit distribution by an input service distributor: not exceeding the amount of service tax paid and not attributing credit to services used in units exclusively engaged in exempted goods or services.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that since the services were availed at the head office, which was part of the appellant itself as a manufacturer, the appellant correctly availed the input service credit. Therefore, the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.