2017 (11) TMI 1481 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - after sales service, such as repairs, during warranty period - Held that - the service of after sales repair has been rendered not in the factory and not even used in the manufacture of goods up to the place of removal. Hence, the Cenvat credit is not allowable under the main clause - the activities in dispute also cannot be covered within the includes clause of definition of input service . The eligibility of a service as input service is required to be decided in relation to the definition of input service given in rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The fact that the value of certain services are included in the assessable value by itself will not entitle the Cenvat credit. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for after-sales services during warranty period.
2. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' post-amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011.
3. Applicability of precedents allowing after-sales services as 'input service' before the amendment.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing specific products, availed Cenvat credit on service tax paid for after-sales services provided by dealers during the warranty period. The department denied the credit, stating that such services did not qualify as 'input services.' The adjudicating authority upheld the denial, leading to the appellant's appeal against the order.

2. Post-amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011, the definition of 'input service' was crucial in determining the eligibility for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal analyzed the amended definition, emphasizing services used directly or indirectly in the manufacture and clearance of final products. The after-sales repair services, not related to manufacturing or clearance, were deemed ineligible under the main clause of the definition.

3. The appellant argued that the in-warranty service costs were included in the goods' assessable value, supporting their claim for Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal clarified that inclusion in assessable value alone does not guarantee credit eligibility. Precedents cited by the appellant, allowing such services as 'input service,' were deemed irrelevant post-amendment due to the altered definition.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and affirming the denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for after-sales services during the warranty period. The decision was based on the inapplicability of the services to the 'input service' definition post-amendment, despite arguments and precedents presented by the appellant.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues, arguments, legal interpretations, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI in the cited judgment.