2017 (1) TMI 550 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - input services to provide output service of repair and maintenance service during warranty period - Held that - The service received by the appellants from their dealers is Business Auxiliary Service which has to be treated as an input service for the appellant used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products, as free warranty repair and maintenance during warranty period, has enriched the value of the goods - credit allowed. Cargo handling services - Courier services - nexus with output service - Held that - such services, have been used for purposes of repair and maintenance services, which have not been explicitly charged to Service Tax since the same has been rendered during warranty period. I find that the credit on such services has been permitted as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved: Disallowance of Cenvat credit on inputs used for free repair and maintenance during warranty period; Denial of Cenvat credit on certain services; Validity of the demand components challenged.

Analysis:

1. Disallowed Cenvat Credit for Free Repair and Maintenance: The appellant, engaged in providing repair and maintenance services during the warranty period without charging any specific amount, faced disallowance of Cenvat credit by the Department. The Original Authority ordered recovery of Cenvat Credit along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order partially, allowing cash recovery of the difference between the amounts. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the issue had been decided in their favor by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal, following the precedent, held that the Cenvat credit for inputs used in providing free repair and maintenance during the warranty period cannot be denied. The appellant's argument was supported by legal precedents and hence, the disallowance of Cenvat credit in this regard was set aside.

2. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Certain Services: Another component of the demand related to the denial of Cenvat credit on services like cargo handling and courier services, which were claimed to have no nexus with the output services. The appellant contended that such denial was unjustified, citing Tribunal decisions that allowed Cenvat credit on similar services used for repair and maintenance activities. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that denying Cenvat credit on these services was not justified under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the denial of Cenvat credit on these services was set aside.

3. Validity of the Demand Components: The appellant further argued that the remaining demand component was unsustainable in light of the findings on the previous issues. The Tribunal concurred with this argument, declaring the balance demand as un-sustainable based on the analysis and conclusions drawn regarding the disallowed Cenvat credit components. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case revolved around the admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used for free repair and maintenance services during the warranty period and the denial of Cenvat credit on certain services. The decision was based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant rules, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.