2016 (4) TMI 103 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit disallowed - recovery of interest on the said amount and penalty of an equivalent amount - denial of claim as the appellant had taken cenvat credit of service tax paid on Renting of Immovable Property Service, Insurance Services, Construction Service, Travel Agent Service, Interior Decorator Service and Architect Service but the same did not qualify to be input services in respect of the appellant - Held that - On cenvat credit in respect of renting of immovable property the adjudicating authority has not dealt with the contention of the appellant that the branch offices which were taken on rent were used not only for procuring orders and delivery of the goods but also for provision of erection commissioning and installation service and repair and maintenance service. Denial of cenvat credit by the adjudicating authority is clearly untenable specially when the other ground pleaded by the appellant that the branch offices were also used for provision of ECIS and repair and maintenance service has not been adverted to by it. Thus, having regard to the nature of the use for which these branch offices were taken on rent, we are of the view that the said service clearly qualifies to be covered within the scope of input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Regarding the insurance services perusal of the nature of insurance policies and the risks covered by them make it obvious that these were used in or in relation to the manufacture of the goods and their clearance upto to the place of removal except the insurance policy which insured the goods during their journey from the place of removal onwards. As regards the place of removal, it is no longer res-integra that in respect of goods exported, the port of export is the place of removal The definition of input service clearly states that input services inter alia means any service used by the manufacturer in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal. Thus the insurance policies except to the extent they cover journey of goods from the place of removal onwards would be covered within the scope of input service. The input credit in respect of construction service in the case of NTF (India) Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE - (2013 (6) TMI 618 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ) it was held that construction of office rooms in factory premises relates to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory premises and hence specifically covered within the scope of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the light of these judicial precedents, the finding of the adjudicating authority with regard to denial of cenvat credit on construction service is unsustainable. In the case of Travel Agent Service such travel agent service is clearly covered under the scope of input service for the purpose of cenvat credit. See Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. CCE (2014 (1) TMI 37 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ) As regards Interior Decorator and Architect Service ervices relating to interior decoration of sales and branch offices and show rooms clearly fall under the definition of input service being, inter alia in the nature of modernisation/ renovation or repair of factory or premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, and credit in respect of such services was allowed by CESTAT in the case of CCE, Bhavanagar vs. Nirma Ltd.(2010 (6) TMI 315 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ).

Issues Involved:

1. Denial of Cenvat credit on Renting of Immovable Property Service.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit on Insurance Services.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit on Construction Service.
4. Denial of Cenvat credit on Travel Agent Service.
5. Denial of Cenvat credit on Interior Decorator Service.
6. Denial of Cenvat credit on Architect Service.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Renting of Immovable Property Service:

The appellant contended that the rented premises were used for branch offices assisting in procurement of orders, delivery of goods, provision of erection commissioning and installation service, and repair and maintenance service. The adjudicating authority did not address these contentions. The definition of "input service" prior to and post 01.03.2011 under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 includes services used in relation to the premises of the provider of output service or an office relating to such factory. The Tribunal found that the denial of Cenvat credit was untenable as the rented branch offices were used for legitimate business activities, qualifying them as input services under the rules.

2. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Insurance Services:

The appellant provided details of various insurance policies, such as Marine Export Import Insurance, Fidelity Guarantee Insurance, and All Risks Insurance, arguing these were essential for business operations. The Tribunal noted that life and health insurance for employees were excluded from the definition of input service post 01.03.2011, and the appellant did not claim credit for these. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that insurance services related to the manufacture and clearance of goods up to the place of removal were admissible, except for insurance of goods beyond the place of removal.

3. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Construction Service:

The appellant argued that the construction service was for dismantling a building and constructing a storage shed, which falls under the scope of input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents that supported the inclusion of construction services related to the factory premises under input services. The denial of Cenvat credit on this ground was found unsustainable.

4. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Travel Agent Service:

The appellant claimed that travel agent services were used for business meetings, sales, advertisement, recruitment, and training. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not provide reasons for denying credit on these services. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that travel agent services for business purposes are covered under input services for Cenvat credit.

5. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Interior Decorator Service:

The appellant contended that interior decorator services were used for decorating branch offices and showrooms, which should qualify as input services. The Tribunal referred to case laws where such services were considered input services when related to the modernization, renovation, or repair of factory premises or offices. The denial of credit on this ground was found to be incorrect.

6. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Architect Service:

The appellant argued that architect services were used for planning renovations and repairs of factory premises. The Tribunal cited precedents where architect services were deemed input services for Cenvat credit. The denial of credit on this ground was also found unsustainable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned demand was not sustainable except for the Cenvat credit on insurance services related to goods beyond the place of removal. The case was remanded to the primary adjudicating authority for recomputation of demand, interest, and penalty related to the insurance services beyond the place of removal. The penalty would also need to be recomputed based on the revised demand.

← Previous Next →