2021 (6) TMI 977 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - banking and finance service - Pelletizing Plant - allowable or not in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 2 (l) read with Rule 9(6) of CCR - HELD THAT - The setting-up of Pelletizing machine/plant is undisputedly for modernisation of the existing manufacturing facility for better efficiency and better quality of finished products, which amounts to modernisation. Further, hold modernisation is allowable, and any service used by appellant/manufacturer for modernisation of their manufacturing facility, is allowable input service. The input credit of ₹ 25,14,532/- is allowable credit under Rule 2(l) read with Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of cenvat credit for banking and finance services used in setting up a new Pelletizing Plant.
2. Interpretation of the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of CCR.
3. Applicability of subsequent notifications and amendments to the definition of "input service."
4. Disallowance of cenvat credit and imposition of penalties under Rule 15 of CCR.

Issue 1:
The appellant availed cenvat credit of service tax on banking and finance services amounting to &8377; 25,14,532 for setting up a new Pelletizing Plant. The Revenue issued a show cause notice disallowing this credit, contending it did not qualify as an input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR.

Issue 2:
The Asstt. Commissioner dropped the proposed disallowance, emphasizing that the definition of "input service" is broad and covers services directly or indirectly related to manufacturing. The Pelletizing Plant expansion was deemed essential for the existing business, fulfilling the conditions for input service under Rule 2(l).

Issue 3:
The Revenue appealed, arguing that services for setting up a new plant were not covered under the definition of "input service" post-amendment from 1.4.2011. The Ld. Commissioner concurred, ordering recovery of the credit with interest and imposing penalties under Rule 15 of CCR.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal held that the Pelletizing Plant setup was for modernization, making it an allowable input service under Rule 2(l) read with Rule 3 and Rule 9 of CCR. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the cenvat credit for banking and finance services used in setting up the new Pelletizing Plant. The judgment emphasized the broad interpretation of the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of CCR, considering services integral to the manufacturing process as eligible for credit. The decision highlighted the importance of modernization and efficiency improvements in existing manufacturing facilities, ultimately granting the appellant the benefit of the credit under the relevant rules and regulations.