9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 542 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - refund of accumulated unutilized cenvat credit towards exports - Business Support Service - Management, Maintenance and Repair Service - Renting of Immovable Property - Security Agency Services - Held that - The Legal Services and Accounting Services are specifically mentioned in the definition and they are used by the appellant in relation to their manufacturing/business activity only - reliance placed in the case of Golden Tobacco Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai I 2013 (6) TMI 617 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that All these services have nexus and are integrally connected with the business of manufacturing and are all eligible input service - Business Support Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service fall in the definition of input services and appellant is entitled to refund of the same. Renting of Immovable Property Services - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Indian Rail and Industries Ltd. 2006 (8) TMI 7 CESTAT- Mumbai wherein it has been observed that there is no such stipulation that the input services must be provided or received in the factory of manufacture - the appellant is entitled to refund of cenvat credit in respect of Renting of Immovable Property Services. Security Service - Held that - reliance placed in the case of CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs. Biocon Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 716 - Karnataka wherein the Hon ble High Court observed that if the assessee owns more than one unit and all the units are situated at a place it would constitute a factory - Security Services are also fall in the definition of input service and appellant is entitled to the refund of cenvat credit. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Refund of cenvat credit on input services including Business Support Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Renting of Immovable Property, Security Agency Services. Analysis: The appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying cenvat credit refund on various input services. The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing Bulk Pharmaceutical products, sought refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for the quarter January 2011 to March 2011. The adjudicating authority partially rejected the claim, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit for some services but denied it for others, prompting the present appeal. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to consider relevant legal provisions and precedents. They contended that services like Business Support Service, Management, Maintenance, and Repair Service qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Citing precedents like Golden Tobacco Ltd. and National Engineering Industries Ltd., they asserted that these services were directly related to their manufacturing/business activities, making them eligible for refund. The appellant also defended the Renting of Immovable Property service used at their Mumbai office, emphasizing its direct relevance to pharmaceutical manufacturing regulatory activities. Regarding the Security Service, the appellant clarified that services received at Unit II were also eligible for refund, as both units shared centralized registration and operated as a single entity. They referenced the decision in CCE, Salem Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. to support their argument. Additionally, the appellant highlighted a previous Tribunal order and a High Court decision in their favor, reinforcing their entitlement to cenvat credit for Security Services. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability and set it aside, granting relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the denial of cenvat credit refund on specific input services, analyzing each service's eligibility based on legal provisions, precedents, and the direct relation to the appellant's manufacturing activities. The Tribunal's decision to overturn the Commissioner (Appeals) order was grounded in the interpretation of relevant laws and established case law, ensuring a fair outcome for the appellant.
|
