2018 (12) TMI 722 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Real Estate Agency Services - Held that - As long as a service is used directly or directly, in or in relation to, the manufacture of final products and clearance thereof, such service is an eligible input service. M/s. CBRE was entrusted with the work of completing the process of selling the land belonging to the appellant within a reasonable time. This has no connection with the financing activity figuring in the inclusive part of the definition of input service . The role of M/s. CBRE is thus limited; may be the purpose of the appellant is different but what is important is the service provided by the service provider that is used by the manufacturer, directly or indirectly, in or in relation to, the manufacture of final products and clearance thereof. The scope of the definition of input service revolves around the manufacturing activity and not the business activity. M/s. CBRE rendered the services of Real Estate Agent simpliciter - credit rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on input services provided by M/s. CBRE for selling factory premises.
2. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Applicability of judicial precedents in determining eligibility of input services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on input services rendered by M/s. CBRE for identifying a buyer for their factory premises. The Revenue contended that these services did not qualify as valid input services as per Rule 2(l) since they were not used directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products. The appellant argued that the services were necessary due to fund flow issues and were not excluded from the definition of input services. The Order-in-Original accepted the appellant's plea, but the Revenue appealed. The Tribunal noted that the services provided by M/s. CBRE were not related to manufacturing activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which defines "input service." The rule includes services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The appellant argued that the services of M/s. CBRE were essential for their business activities. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the definition of input service revolves around manufacturing activities, not general business operations. The Tribunal held that the services provided by M/s. CBRE, being real estate agent services, did not qualify as input services under the rule.

3. The appellant relied on judicial precedents such as TamilNadu Petroproducts Ltd., Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd., and M/s. Bright Brothers Ltd. to support their claim for CENVAT Credit. However, the Tribunal clarified that these precedents did not align with the specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the services provided by M/s. CBRE were distinct from activities directly related to manufacturing processes. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, dismissing the appeal by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled against the appellant, affirming that the services provided by M/s. CBRE did not qualify as valid input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The judgment highlighted the importance of services directly or indirectly linked to manufacturing activities to be eligible for CENVAT Credit, emphasizing the specific scope of the rule in determining credit eligibility.