2019 (7) TMI 257 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Input Services Distributor - violation of rule 9 of CCR - manner of distribution of credit by an ISD - HELD THAT - The two conditions are to be satisfied by an ISD and it is therefore, for the Revenue to give a finding as to the violation, if any, of any or both the conditions of Rule7. In the absence of any such specific findings, there cannot be any denial of the Cenvat credit distributed for consumption at the units. In the case on hand, without causing any investigation or enquiry as to the claim of the appellant, the adjudicating authority has doubted the availment of service tax credit by the ISD itself despite a clear pleading that the jurisdictional Commissionerate has accepted. Admittedly, the assessee-appellant has only sought for the consumption of credit that was claimed to be available with the appellant s ISD which was explained to have been passed on. So, in the absence of any disputes as to the eligibility of credits availed by the ISD, the same cannot be questioned at the receiver s end, who only sought for consumption of the same. What transpires from the above is clear, that there are only two limitations for distribution of credit by an ISD and in the case on hand, Revenue has not made out a case as to the non-satisfaction of the above two conditions. Consequently, there being no deficiency as to the eligibility of the ISD for distribution, no denial could be made in the hands of the recipient who has only consumed the same. The disallowance as well as the impugned order cannot sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit availed by the Input Service Distributor (ISD).
2. Nexus between the input services and the manufacturing activities.
3. Compliance with Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Validity of the disallowance of Cenvat credit by the adjudicating authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit availed by the Input Service Distributor (ISD):
The appellant, a manufacturer of paints and varnishes, availed Cenvat credit on service tax for various input services through its Head Office in Mumbai, registered as an ISD. The ISD distributed this credit to various manufacturing units, including the one in Chennai. The Revenue issued three Show Cause Notices (SCNs) alleging contravention of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR), demanding recovery of allegedly ineligible credit, along with interest and penalty.

2. Nexus between the input services and the manufacturing activities:
The appellant argued that the input services, such as cargo handling, air travel agents, banking and financial services, transport of raw materials, authorized service station, rail travel agents, outdoor catering, insurance auxiliary service, and housekeeping, were essential for their manufacturing and marketing processes. The appellant emphasized that the lower authorities ignored the concept of ISD and failed to recognize the nexus between these services and the manufacturing activities.

3. Compliance with Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
Rule 2(m) defines an ISD as an office of the manufacturer or producer of final products or provider of output service, which receives invoices for input services and distributes the credit of service tax paid on these services. Rule 7 prescribes the manner of distribution of credit by an ISD, stating that the credit distributed should not exceed the amount of service tax paid and should not be attributed to services used in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacturing exempted goods or providing exempted services.

The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not discuss the eligibility of the ISD for distribution and simply dismissed the appellant's claim without pointing out any violation of Rule 2(m) or Rule 7. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide specific findings on the alleged violations, and there was no dispute regarding the eligibility of credits availed by the ISD.

4. Validity of the disallowance of Cenvat credit by the adjudicating authority:
The Tribunal found that the disallowance was upheld mainly for want of nexus, without any investigation or enquiry into the appellant's claims. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CCE, Bangalore Vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd., which analyzed the scope and applicability of Rules 2(k), 2(l), 2(m), and Rule 7, concluding that only two limitations are imposed for the distribution of credit by an ISD. The Tribunal also cited other cases supporting the view that the recipient of the credit cannot be denied the same if the ISD is eligible for distribution.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of Cenvat credit and the impugned orders could not sustain due to the lack of specific findings on the alleged violations and the established eligibility of the ISD for distribution. Consequently, the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per law. The operative part of the order was dictated in the open court.

← Previous Next →