2015 (12) TMI 1442 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - nexus with the appellant s manufacturing activities - Imposition of equivalent penalty - Held that - Services involved in the said show-cause notice are training services received by the appellant from M/s Pegassus HRD Centre Pvt Ltd for training of their employees in managerial and management skills; photography services received to cover the company functions organized inside the factory; travel expenses for employees family visits to the factory plant of the assessee and travel agent services for reobtaining of the residential permit of the Japanese Director, who lost the same. Out of the said services, I find that training of the employees is an integral part of the running of the business. Similarly photography services to cover the company functions has been held to be cenvatable input service by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd Vs CCE 2011 (3) TMI 1373 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . The services obtained from the travel agent for reissuance of the residential permit of the Japanese Directors are also services availed in connection with the business. However, the travel expenses for employees family visit to the factory plant of the assessee cannot be held to be having any connection with the appellants manufacturing activities or business activities. As such, except for CENVAT credit of ₹ 895/-, I hold that the other credits are available to the appellant. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit for various services availed by the appellant.
2. Disallowance of credit in show-cause notices issued for different periods.
3. Interpretation of provisions of law regarding limitation period for availing credit.
4. Disallowance of credit for specific services like training, photography, travel expenses, and forex services.
5. Imposition and setting aside of penalties based on credit disallowance.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was denied CENVAT credit of Rs. 6,13,356/- for services not deemed to have a nexus with their manufacturing activities, leading to an equal penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of suppression or misstatement by the appellant, setting aside the demand, interest, and penalty due to a bonafide interpretation of law without malafide intent.

2. Show-cause notices were issued for different periods, with the first notice for April 2008 to March 2010 being disposed of on the point of limitation. Despite some services being held non-cenvatable, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had reflected the credit in their records, leading to the demand being set aside due to no evidence of suppression or misstatement.

3. The second notice for April 2010 to September 2010 disallowed credit for various services, including training, photography, and travel expenses. While training and certain other services were deemed cenvatable, travel expenses for employees' family visits were not considered connected to manufacturing activities, resulting in partial credit allowance.

4. The third notice for October 2010 to March 2011 involved denial of credit for telephone services and forex services. The Tribunal referenced precedents to allow credit for landline phones at Director's residences and forex services for business travels, setting aside penalties due to the major part of the demand being annulled.

5. Penalties were set aside as the majority of the demand was rejected, with no malafide intent found in the appellant's actions regarding the disallowed credit. The entire penalty was consequently revoked, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and outcomes of the case concerning CENVAT credit denial and penalty imposition, providing a detailed understanding of the Tribunal's decision.