2016 (10) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Rent - ISO Service - Software Service - Advertising Service - CPA Service - consultancy Service - Courier service - House keeping service - Commissioner, catering and Security on the premises - whether the CENVAT credit on these services can be denied on the ground that these services are not input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - reference made on the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT - Held that - the decision of the case of Maruti Suzuki India ltd. cannot be relied upon as the Hon ble Apex Court has held that cenvat credit on input is available if these inputs is used in manufacturing of final product. Admittedly, in the case in hand no input is involved. The distinction between input and input service is not clearly understood. The decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT relied upon where it was held that any services availed by the manufacturer of excisable goods is entitled for cenvat credit. The services is availed by the respondent in the course of their business of manufacturing - CENVAT credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to allowance of cenvat credit on various input services by the Revenue.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the order allowing cenvat credit on input services like Rent, ISO Service, Software Service, Advertising Service, CPA Service, consultancy Service, Courier, Housekeeping service, Commissioner, catering, and Security. The Id. Commissioner (A) deemed these services as qualifying under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The Revenue contested the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision, arguing that the input services received lacked a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. They cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)] to support their stance.

In response, the Ld. AR highlighted the distinction between input and input service, referencing the case of Ultratech Cement Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (260) ELT 269 (Bom.)]. The Ld. AR emphasized that any services availed by the manufacturer of excisable goods are entitled to cenvat credit. Since the services in question were utilized in the course of the respondent's manufacturing business, the Ld. AR argued that the impugned order was valid.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (A), dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized the applicability of cenvat credit to services availed in the manufacturing process, in line with relevant legal precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key arguments presented by both parties, the legal principles invoked, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.