9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the lower Authorities is devoid of any legal merit. The eligibility of credit on the input service has not been contested. Once the credit is availed, the use of such credit is governed by Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Sub-Rule (4) of the said Rule stipulates that Cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on any final product. Here there is no one to one co-relation or condition that credit on input services can be utilized only for discharging tax on output services or Excise Duty on final products cannot be paid using Cenvat credit availed on input services. Hence, the order of the lower Authority disallowing the Cenvat credit on input service is not legally sustainable. It is seen that the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said service had no nexus with manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by issue of show cause notice dated 02/8/2010 and resulted in original order dated 16/2/12. The Original Authority disallowed a credit of ₹ 10,55,318/- and imposed equal penalty on the appellants. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order upheld the original order and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted (i) the appellants are manufacturing furniture at their factory and the said furniture are required to be erected/ installed at different locations; in some cases such installation is done under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es which was used for providing output service cannot be utilized for payment of Central Excise duty is unsustainable in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Rules do not provide for any one to one co-relation between credit legally availed and its utilization. 3. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower Authorities and submitted that the credit on commercial construction service is not available to the appellant for the manufacture of industrial furniture. 4. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant herein is both a manufacturer and a service provider. They manufactured dutiable industrial furniture and they also render taxable output servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice is admissible only on those services which have connection or nexus with the manufacture and clearance of goods and includes services used in relation to activities relating to business. He proceed to deny the credit on commercial construction on the ground that the same is not connected to manufacture of industrial furniture. The impugned order has not examined whether the input service is eligible for credit as it has got nexus with taxable output service provided by the manufacturer. Thus, the discussion and findings were mis-directed resulting in the unsustainable conclusion. 5. Considering the above factual position and discussion, I find the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside allowing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
