2017 (7) TMI 710 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Motor Vehicle Insurance - Vehicle Maintenance Charges - Clearing and Forwarding Services - Port Services - Revenue was of the view that such services cannot be considered to be cenvatable - Held that - insurance of vehicles and their maintenance has to be treated as input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in as much as, they are related to the manufacturing activities of the assessee - the credit availed by the assessee prior to 01.04.2011, which is the period involved in two of the appeals, is admissible to the appellant. The appellants are not disputing their liability to reverse back the credit availed post-04.04.2011, I uphold the denial of the same. As regards, interest, though the appellant have taken a stand that the said credit was not utilized by them but the said fact is required to be verified by the lower authorities. If the credit has not been utilized and remained only as a paper entry in their Cenvat Credit Account, the appellant would not be saddled with any interest liability. Penalty - Held that - there is no malafide on the part of the assessee so as to invite any penal action against them - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on various input services including Motor Vehicle Insurance and Vehicle Maintenance Charges
- Denial of Cenvat credit by original adjudicating authority
- Commissioner (Appeals) allowing credit for some services but denying for others
- Eligibility of Motor Vehicle Insurance and Vehicle Maintenance Charges as input services for Cenvat credit
- Applicability of amendments to input services definition post-01.04.2011
- Liability for interest and penalty post-amendment

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appellant, a manufacturer of structural fabrication items, availing Cenvat credit on various input services, including Motor Vehicle Insurance and Vehicle Maintenance Charges. The original adjudicating authority issued show-cause notices proposing to deny the credit for these services. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit for some services but denied it for Motor Vehicle Insurance and Vehicle Maintenance Charges, leading to the present appeal.

The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether Motor Vehicle Insurance and Vehicle Maintenance Charges qualify as eligible input services for Cenvat credit. The judge referred to various Tribunal decisions, establishing that insurance of vehicles and their maintenance are considered input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they relate to manufacturing activities. Consequently, the credit availed by the appellant before 01.04.2011 was deemed admissible.

However, a distinction was made for the period post-01.04.2011 when the definition of input services was amended to exclude Motor Vehicle Insurance and Vehicle Maintenance Charges. The appellant acknowledged the non-availability of credit for this period but contested the imposition of interest and penalty. The judge considered the appellant's argument that they were unaware of the amendment and had not utilized the credit during that time, citing relevant court decisions supporting their stance.

Regarding the liability for interest and penalty post-amendment, the judge upheld the denial of credit for the post-amendment period. The interest liability was subject to verification by lower authorities to confirm if the credit remained unused as claimed by the appellant. Noting the absence of malafide intent on the appellant's part, the judge set aside the penalty imposed, considering the circumstances and the timely reflection of credit in their Cenvat Credit Account.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed Appeal Nos.E/41888 & 41889/2016 entirely, while Appeal No.E/41890/2016 was disposed of by confirming the denial of credit, remanding the matter for interest verification, and setting aside the penalty imposed, based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved.