2017 (9) TMI 1051 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - Banking and Financial Service Charges - Mobile Charges - Courier Charges - Repair and Maintenance Charges - Held that - The admissibility of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on aforesaid services had been considered by the High Court/Tribunal Cadila Healthcare Ltd s case 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and Nash Industries s case 2016 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT BANGALORE and it has been held that credit on the said services is admissible being satisfies the definition of input service prescribed u/r 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on specific services
- Interpretation of 'Input Services' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004
- Admissibility of CENVAT Credit based on judicial precedents

Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Specific Services:
The case involved appeals against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax regarding the availing of CENVAT Credit on services like Banking and Financial Service Charges, Mobile Charges, Courier Charges, and Repair and Maintenance Charges. The Appellants had availed credit during a specific period but were issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that these services did not qualify as 'Input Services' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalties imposed. The Appellants contended that these services were essential for their manufacturing business and cited judicial precedents to support their claim.

Interpretation of 'Input Services' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004:
The Appellants argued that the services in question satisfied the definition of 'Input Services' as prescribed in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. They referenced judgments by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal which supported their stance. The Appellants emphasized that the services were utilized for their manufacturing business and not for personal use, making them eligible for credit. The Revenue, represented by the Ld AR, failed to provide any contradictory judgments to counter the Appellants' arguments.

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit Based on Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal considered the precedents set by the High Court and Tribunal in cases such as Cadila Healthcare Ltd and Nash Industries. These judgments concluded that the credit on the services in question was admissible as they met the definition of 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Given the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the Assessee regarding the usage of these services in their manufacturing business, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the established decisions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the reliance on judicial precedents to determine the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on specific services.