2016 (6) TMI 667 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement for input service credit - reason for filing the appeal by the Revenue is that the respondent has no nexus of utilization of the services in the course of manufacturing activity - Held that - During the relevant period, the law was settled by Hon ble High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein the service received by the assessee in the course of business of manufacturing, the assessee is entitled to take credit. Admittedly, the services in question have been received by the respondent in their various branch office in the course of business of manufacturing, therefore, relying on the decision in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., hold that the respondents are entitled to take credit on the input services - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing credit on certain services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:

1. Credit Eligibility of Services:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing credit to the respondent on various services received outside the factory premises. The Revenue contended that these services did not qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were not received in the factory of the respondent and the respondent was not registered as a service distributor. The Revenue initiated proceedings and denied the credit, which was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Arguments and Legal Precedents:
The learned AR for the Revenue argued that there was no nexus shown by the respondent regarding the utilization of the services in their manufacturing activity. He relied on previous Tribunal decisions such as Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., Vikram Ispat, and Manikgarh Cement to support the contention that the respondent was not entitled to input service credit. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel referred to earlier/subsequent periods where credit on similar services was allowed by authorities and this Tribunal. Additionally, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd. and Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.

3. Judgment and Ruling:
The Tribunal, in its analysis, emphasized that during the relevant period, the law was established by the Bombay High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd., stating that if services are received in the course of the manufacturing business, the assessee is entitled to take credit. Since the services in question were received by the respondent in various branch offices during the manufacturing process, the Tribunal held that the respondent was eligible for credit on the input services. The Tribunal found that the case laws cited by the Revenue's AR were not relevant to the current case and were decided before the Ultratech Cement Ltd. judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility of the respondent for input service credit based on the specific circumstances and legal precedents cited during the proceedings, ultimately upholding the decision in favor of the respondent.