2017 (10) TMI 499 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - Joint Sheet S. S. Score Steel Casting Locktite Gland Packing Molyket BR Ve-Belt Took Kit Black H. R. Plate Aluminium Expansion Plates M. S. Plates etc. - input service - services rendered by commission agent - Held that - ld. Counsel has relied on various earlier decisions CBEC Circular & case laws through which the inputs and capitals goods covered by the present proceedings have been accepted as admissible for availment of Cenvat credit - Service Tax paid on Sales Commission is admissible as input service Cenvat credit - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods and input services.
2. Interpretation of the definition of capital goods.
3. Determination of input services for Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, alleging that the respondents availed Cenvat credit on inadmissible capital goods and input services, including Service Tax paid on sales commission and various capital goods. The Original Authority allowed partial Cenvat credit and disallowed the rest. The Commissioner (Appeals) further allowed Cenvat credit except for a specific amount. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

2. The grounds of appeal by Revenue included the argument that certain items like Joint Sheet, Steel Casting, Locktite, Gland Packing, etc., did not qualify as capital goods. Additionally, Revenue contended that services rendered by a commission agent should not be considered as input services for Cenvat credit.

3. During the hearing, the respondent's counsel referred to previous Tribunal decisions and CBEC Circulars to support the admissibility of Cenvat credit on the disputed items. The counsel highlighted specific cases where similar items were deemed admissible for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, found in favor of the respondent, stating that the items in question were admissible for Cenvat credit based on past decisions and circulars. The Tribunal also upheld the admissibility of Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid on sales commission, as per the respondent's own case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Revenue, allowing the respondent to claim consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment upheld the admissibility of Cenvat credit on the disputed capital goods and input services based on past decisions and circulars, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent and dismissing the appeal by Revenue.