2022 (10) TMI 798 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - adjudication authority in respect of disputed input services denied the credit without discussing the nature and use of the services in the Appellant s factory - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The nature of use of the disputed services as explained by the appellant was not properly addressed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order passed by him. Hence, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for a proper fact finding on issue of eligibility of Cenvat credit on the disputed services. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to pass a de novo order after considering all the documents to be submitted by the appellant before him.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on various input services prior to the commencement of commercial production.
- Interpretation of the definition of "input services" under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of exclusion clauses to the definition of input services.
- Application of the user test for allowing credit on service tax paid on input services.
- Time-barred demand for credit availed in previous financial years.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, M/s. Shubhalakshmi Polyesters Ltd., filed an appeal challenging the Order-in-Original disallowing cenvat credit on various input services availed during the setting up of their factory. The Commissioner confirmed the cenvat demand and imposed penalties. The appellant contended that services related to setting up the factory are covered under the definition of "input services" as they are directly related to manufacturing activities.

2. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their argument, emphasizing that setting up the factory is integral to the manufacturing process. They argued that the exclusion clauses of the definition of input services do not apply to the services used for setting up the factory, and hence, credit should not be denied.

3. The appellant further contended that the Commissioner wrongly presumed that the services only involved construction activities, whereas they encompassed various other services as well. They invoked the user test established by the Supreme Court to support their claim for allowing the cenvat credit on input services.

4. The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the Commissioner's decision to deny the cenvat credit, stating that it did not comply with the Cenvat statute. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the adjudication authority failed to properly analyze the nature and use of the disputed services in the factory.

5. The Tribunal concluded that a detailed examination of the nature and purpose of the services in the provision of output services and their use in the factory is essential to determine the eligibility of cenvat credit. As such, they remanded the matter to the original authority for a proper fact-finding on the issue of eligibility of cenvat credit on the disputed services.

6. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding it to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after considering all relevant documents submitted by the appellant. They emphasized granting the appellant a fair opportunity for submission and a personal hearing during the de novo adjudication process.

7. The Tribunal pronounced the judgment on 18.10.2022, allowing the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.