2023 (5) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - denial on the ground that the services were not covered by the scope of definition of Input Service as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - period January to March 2011 - HELD THAT - The impugned services involved in the present case have been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal - reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. CUS., VAPI VERSUS APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. 2010 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , GARWARE POLYSTER LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD 2011 (10) TMI 73 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , M/S. FIAMM MINDA AUTOMOTIVE LTD. VERSUS CCE, DELHI-III 2011 (1) TMI 246 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and M/S. COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal against the order rejecting cenvat credit on input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Facts:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing valves and cocks, availed cenvat credit on various input services totaling Rs. 57,597/- for the period January to March 2011. The Superintendent disallowed the credit, ordered recovery with interest, and imposed a penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Analysis:
The main issue in the case was whether the cenvat credit on the input services was admissible as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that previous decisions favored them on similar services. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of cenvat credit for services like Courier Services, Exhibition Services, Insurance Services, Internet Services, and Website Designing in various cases cited by the appellant.

Decision:
After reviewing the arguments and the cited decisions, the Member (Judicial) concluded that all the disputed services had been considered as input services in previous Tribunal decisions. Therefore, the impugned order disallowing the cenvat credit was deemed unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Separate Judgment:
This judgment was delivered by MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH.