2019 (3) TMI 970 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - marketing and festival expenses - marketing and sales promotion expenses towards hire of mobile vans - Held that - The issue of marketing and festival services is covered in favour of the appellant by the ruling of Toyota 2011 (3) TMI 1373 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and accordingly the same is held to be allowable. Marketing and sales promotion expenses towards hire of mobile vans - Held that - Admittedly appellant have used the motor vans for business purpose/ sales promotion/ marketing, and accordingly they have taken entire cenvat credit of ₹ 1,38,966/- - credit allowed. So far the charging of interest is concerned under Rule 14 of CCR, the appellant shall be liable for interest only on such portion of cenvat credit which they have utilized - this issue is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority who shall calculate the interest payable under Rule 14. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of cenvat credit on marketing and festival expenses; Disallowance of cenvat credit on hire of mobile vans; Charging of interest on cenvat credit taken and reversed under Section 14.

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the disallowance of cenvat credit on marketing and festival expenses totaling &8377; 44,758 and on hire of mobile vans amounting to &8377; 1,38,966. The appellant organized gatherings for customers on occasions like holi, deepawali, and others to promote business and educate new customers. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, deeming the expenses as social activities unrelated to cement manufacturing. The appellant argued that these activities were essential for business promotion, citing a Karnataka High Court ruling. Regarding the hire of mobile vans, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) denied the claim, stating it fell under an excluded category of input service.

2. The appellant contended that the disallowance reasons were flawed, emphasizing that one service provider could offer multiple services. They also referenced a Tribunal ruling to challenge the exclusion of hiring vans as an input service. The Tribunal analyzed the exclusion clause related to renting motor vehicles, highlighting that the exclusion applied only to non-capital goods vehicles. The Tribunal found fault in the lower authorities' interpretation, stating that the service provider's status determined if a vehicle was a capital good. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the cenvat credit on the service tax paid for the rented motor vehicles.

3. The Ld. AR for Revenue supported the impugned order and argued that the appellant should be liable for interest on the availed cenvat credit. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the cenvat credit on marketing and festival expenses and hire of mobile vans. They also held that the appellant would be liable for interest only on the utilized cenvat credit amount. The penalty imposed under Rule 15 was set aside due to the interpretational nature of the issue, resulting in the appeal being allowed.

4. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Adjudicating Authority for calculating the interest payable under Rule 14. The appellant was directed to submit their calculation for appraisal. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting the exclusion clause related to renting motor vehicles as an input service, ensuring fair treatment for service recipients in claiming cenvat credit.

Conclusion:
The judgment resolved the issues of cenvat credit disallowance on marketing and festival expenses and hire of mobile vans in favor of the appellant. It clarified the interpretation of the exclusion clause regarding renting motor vehicles as an input service, ensuring fair treatment for service recipients. The appellant was directed to pay interest only on the utilized cenvat credit amount, and the penalty was set aside due to the interpretational nature of the issue.