2018 (10) TMI 528 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of Work Contract Service received by them during the period September 2015 to March 2017? Held that - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the nature of the service that whether it is of new construction or repair or maintenance on the basis of the document such as invoice, purchase order, work order, etc. he found that the document like contract paper is not submitted - I have gone through the invoice shown by the Ld. Counsel which were not considered by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, I am of the view that the matter should be re-considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of the invoice and work order available on record that whether the service received by the appellant are of maintenance and repair of the existing plant or of new construction. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit for Work Contract Service received during September 2015 to March 2017.

Analysis:
The appellant's counsel argued that a previous Tribunal order allowed credit for repair, renovation, and modernization services post-April 2011, which were not excluded from the definition of input service. The appellant received services for repair and renovation of their factory, not excluded in the definition, thus, credit should be allowed.

The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting their claim, leading to the denial of credit.

Upon review, it was acknowledged that credit is admissible for repair, renovation, or modernization services. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) noted the lack of documentary evidence supporting the appellant's claim of maintenance and repair work. The Commissioner emphasized the need for documentary proof like contract papers to substantiate claims.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not assess the nature of the service based on documents like invoices, purchase orders, or work orders. It was highlighted that only contract papers are insufficient to determine the nature of service. The Tribunal directed a re-consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on available invoices and work orders to ascertain if the services were for repair, maintenance, or renovation, making them eligible for credit.

The Tribunal clarified that post-April 2011, new construction services for setting up plants were excluded from credit eligibility, but repair, modernization, or renovation services remained eligible. The exclusion of civil work from the definition did not render all civil work ineligible for credit. Therefore, services like repair and modernization are considered input services eligible for cenvat credit.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.