Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 758 - AT - Central ExciseIssues Involved: 1. Eligibility of various input services for Cenvat credit. 2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on specific input services. 3. Examination of factual submissions and judicial determinations. Summary: 1. Eligibility of Various Input Services for Cenvat Credit: The appellant, M/s Nitin Castings Limited, challenged the Orders-in-Appeal dated 16.01.2019, which upheld the denial of Cenvat credit on various input services. The Department contended that the services in question did not qualify as 'input service' u/r 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The original authority confirmed the demand for recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 18,00,961/- for the period May 2016 to June 2017, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Specific Input Services: The impugned order examined the eligibility of various input services individually. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of Cenvat credit for services such as renting of property, security, courier, repair and maintenance, transport, insurance, professional fees, and clearing and forwarding. However, Cenvat credit was allowed for telephone, inspection/testing, and banking services. The total ineligible input credit confirmed was Rs. 16,32,479/- after allowing Rs. 1,68,482/- as eligible input credit. 3. Examination of Factual Submissions and Judicial Determinations: The Tribunal noted that the issues relating to the admissibility of Cenvat credit on input services had been settled by higher judicial forums, including judgments from the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's reasoning inadequate and emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the factual submissions and judicial determinations on each service. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2019 and remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the appellant's submissions and relevant judicial determinations, and to pass a speaking order within six months, ensuring an opportunity for personal hearing to the appellant. Result: The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2019.
|