2017 (3) TMI 642 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Staff Quarter Maintenance - Banquet Services - Pandal & Shamiana Services for Artificial Function Hall - Guest House Services - recovery on the ground that the said services do not fall under the scope of the definition of input services prescribed u/r 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that - recovery of inadmissible CENVAT credit with regard to Staff Quarter and Guest House services cannot be upheld in view of judgment of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T. vs. Saurashtra Cement Limited 2016 (2) TMI 185 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT for the extended period of limitation - the demand is enforceable for the normal period of limitation which the ld. Advocate agrees to reverse with interest. The CENVAT Credit on input services namely, Banquet, Pandal & Shamiana Services for Artificial Function Hall is admissible to credit in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Idea Cellular Limited 2011 (1) TMI 811 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on input services.
2. Validity of demands issued invoking extended period of limitation.
3. Interpretation of 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit on input services availed by the appellants. The appellants had claimed CENVAT credit on services like Staff Quarter Maintenance, Banquet Services, Pandal & Shamiana Services, and Guest House Services. The demands were issued for recovery of inadmissible credit, which were confirmed with interest and penalties by the adjudicating authority. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders, leading to the present appeals.

2. The appellants argued that although service tax was paid on services related to staff quarter and guest house maintenance, the CENVAT credit was not admissible based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. However, they contended that due to the demands being issued invoking the extended period of limitation, as per another judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the credit was not recoverable. The appellants were willing to reverse the amount within the normal period of limitation.

3. In the judgment, it was noted that the recovery of inadmissible CENVAT credit for staff quarter and guest house services could not be upheld due to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court regarding the extended period of limitation. However, the demand was enforceable for the normal period of limitation, which the ld. Advocate agreed to reverse with interest. The CENVAT credit on Banquet, Pandal & Shamiana Services for the Artificial Function Hall was deemed admissible based on precedents set by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Consequently, the impugned orders were modified, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.