2015 (12) TMI 342 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Various services - Nexus with manufacturing activity - Held that - Services envisaged in the inclusive part of the definition is very broad and a narrow interpretation cannot be placed to conclude that the services used only in the manufacture of final product will qualify as input service for the purpose of taking CENVAT credit. Therefore, considering the scope and spirit of the definition of input service , I am of the considered view that the stand of Revenue that usages of the services in or in relation to manufacture alone determines its qualification to be an input service is not in harmony with the statutory provisions. - if the services have been utilised either directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product or used in relation to activities relating to business, then such services fall within the definition of input service and the manufacturer is eligible to avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on such services. - there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of service tax paid on input services.
2. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on disputed services.
4. Application of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of service tax.
5. Compliance with conditions for refund under Rule 5.

Issue 1: Eligibility for refund of service tax paid on input services:
The Revenue appealed against the order allowing the respondent's refund claim for service tax paid on input services used in manufacturing exported final products. The Revenue contended that the services were not exclusively used for manufacturing goods and were primarily business expenses. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that certain services, like Catering service, were indeed related to the business and eligible for CENVAT credit.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
The respondent argued that the disputed services fell under the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and thus, refund of unutilized credit should not be denied. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'input service' encompassed services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacturing final products, as well as services related to the business of manufacturing. A broad interpretation was favored over a narrow one to determine the qualification of a service as an 'input service.'

Issue 3: Admissibility of CENVAT credit on disputed services:
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately analyzed the usage of disputed services by the respondent. While some services were disallowed as they were not used in manufacturing final products, others were allowed based on their usage in manufacturing or business activities. The Revenue failed to provide a specific reason for denying CENVAT credit to the respondent, and the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 4: Application of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of service tax:
Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 addresses situations where a manufacturer cannot utilize CENVAT credit and allows for a refund of service tax. In this case, the Tribunal noted that the conditions of Rule 5 were not met by the respondent. However, the denial of the refund claim solely on the basis that disputed services did not qualify as 'input service' was deemed incorrect, considering the broader interpretation of the term.

Issue 5: Compliance with conditions for refund under Rule 5:
Although the conditions for refund under Rule 5 were not fulfilled by the respondent, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the disputed services should be classified as 'input service' for the purpose of Rule 5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the order in favor of the respondent.

This judgment delves into the eligibility of a manufacturer for a refund of service tax paid on input services, emphasizing the interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of a broad interpretation to encompass services used in manufacturing or business activities, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in favor of the respondent.

← Previous Next →