2019 (9) TMI 1131 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - warranty services - denial on account of nexus with manufacturing activity - period Jan. 16 to Jun. 17 - HELD THAT - From the said exclusion clause of input services, it is seen that credit will be eligible if the said services are used by a manufacturer of motor vehicle. In the present case, the appellant is a manufacture of parts and accessories. They supplied the parts and accessories to vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle manufacturers are having an obligation to the customers to provide the Warranty Services. The vehicle manufacturers as well as the appellant, who supply the parts and accessories have included the warranty charges in the assessable value, while discharging the excise duty - Thus, the appellant being a person, who supplies the parts and components to the original vehicle manufactures does not fall within the exclusion clause. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of input service credit on warranty claims

Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicle parts, availed input service credit on GTA Services for a specific period. The department alleged that the credit was not eligible as the services did not have a nexus with the manufacturing activity. The original authority allowed credit on certain services but denied credit on Warranty Services, imposing a demand, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant argued that Warranty Services were essential for fulfilling obligations to customers and that Repair Services were reimbursed by the appellant. The department denied the credit, stating that Warranty Services were provided outside the place of removal and did not qualify as 'input services.' The appellant cited a Tribunal decision to support their claim.

3. The issue revolved around the denial of credit on warranty claims. The appellant supplied parts to vehicle manufacturers who had obligations to fulfill warranty claims. During warranty claims, repair and maintenance services were provided by dealers/manufacturers, with the appellant supplying necessary parts. The appellant availed credit on service tax paid by the service provider for such services.

4. The original authority rejected the credit based on the allegation that services were availed outside the place of removal, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Tribunal found this decision inapplicable, stating that repair and maintenance services during warranty claims were related to the manufacturing activity and not restricted to the factory premises. Exclusions in the definition of 'input services' were also analyzed to support the appellant's eligibility for credit.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit on warranty claims was unjustified. The exclusion clause did not apply to the appellant as a supplier of parts and accessories to vehicle manufacturers. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.