2016 (8) TMI 7 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - various input services - Held that - all the services for which credit have been claimed under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 already stand allowed in various decisions. Hence, these issues are no longer res-integra. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of cenvat credit on various input services by the Commissioner
- Interpretation of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Applicability of case laws allowing cenvat credit for similar services
- Claim of cenvat credit for services used in relation to the manufacture of final products
- Dispute regarding services used in relation to complete vehicles instead of chassis manufacturing
- Admissibility of cenvat credit for services like advertisement, market research, business promotion, etc.
- Specific cases allowing cenvat credit for various input services
- Disallowance of certain services not directly related to manufacturing activity

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against the Commissioner's order disallowing cenvat credit on various input services, totaling a specific amount. The appellant argued that the services in question were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and thus qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal and High Court judgments where similar services were considered eligible for cenvat credit, emphasizing the connection between the services and the manufacturing process.

The appellant contended that all the services disallowed were actively related to their business and formed part of the cost of the final product. The appellant specifically highlighted cases like Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., where the High Court allowed service tax credit for services like advertisement and market research used in the marketing of final products. The judgment extensively discussed the admissibility of cenvat credit for services like advertisement agency, market research, telephone services, business promotion, commission agent services, event management, coaching, banking, security, and more.

The Tribunal examined each service individually, referencing specific cases where cenvat credit for similar services was allowed. Notably, the judgment addressed services disallowed for not being directly related to manufacturing activities, such as life insurance, courier services, repair and maintenance, real estate, and canteen services. The Tribunal concluded that all the services claimed for cenvat credit had been allowed in various decisions, indicating that the issues were no longer res-integra. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the precedents and interpretations provided.