2016 (8) TMI 1014 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - service tax paid by the service provider on the services rendered i.e., garden maintenance, gutter cleaning services - Held that - when an identical issue in respect of the very same assessee is decided by this Tribunal in respect of the eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on garden maintenance and gutter cleaning services, and on a specific question from the Bench as to whether the Revenue has contested the final order, their reply given was that they were not aware of the same; I find that the issue is no more res integra and is covered in favour of the appellant in respect of the Cenvat Credit availed on these two services. Cenvat credit - carpet cleaning services - Held that - these service tax credit availed by the appellant may not be eligible as Cenvat credit for the reason that it is not eligible for the appellant. In view of this, the Cenvat Credit availed of ₹ 1,985/- is liable to be demanded from the appellant along with interest. Since the issue involved is of interpretation, no penalty is required to be imposed on the appellant. - Appeals disposed of

Summary

Issues involved:
Denial of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid by the service provider for garden maintenance, gutter cleaning, and carpet cleaning services.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Mumbai. The main issue in these appeals revolves around the denial of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid by the appellant for services such as garden maintenance, gutter cleaning, and carpet cleaning. The appellant argues that a previous order by the Tribunal favored them in a similar matter related to garden maintenance and gutter cleaning services. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant in that case, indicating that the issue is settled in their favor. The appellant provided a copy of the previous order to support their claim.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found that the issue of availing Cenvat Credit on garden maintenance and gutter cleaning services is no longer open for debate as it has been decided in favor of the appellant in a previous order. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Cenvat Credit for these services. However, regarding the service tax demand of &8377;1,985 for carpet cleaning services provided in the factory premises, the Tribunal held that the Cenvat Credit availed for this service may not be eligible. The Tribunal reasoned that since the service was not eligible for the appellant, the Cenvat Credit of &8377;1,985 must be demanded from the appellant along with interest. Notably, the Tribunal decided not to impose any penalty on the appellant as the issue involved interpretation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by allowing the Cenvat Credit for garden maintenance and gutter cleaning services while rejecting the claim for Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for carpet cleaning services. The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistency in decisions and the need for eligibility criteria to determine the availment of Cenvat Credit.