Tribunal allows cenvat credit for residential colony maintenance as 'input service'

The Tribunal allowed cenvat credit on repair and maintenance of a residential colony, considering it as an 'input service' for Central Excise Duty calculation. Cenvat credit was permitted on an invoice with recipient address discrepancy, as regularized by Service Tax Authorities. The appellant's cenvat benefit denial post-Audit objection was overturned, as payment predated the show cause notice without fraud allegations. The Tribunal held Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules should not impede cenvat benefit without suppression or fraud claims, ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of cenvat credit on repair and maintenance of residential colony
2. Denial of cenvat credit on an invoice due to recipient address discrepancy
3. Denial of cenvat benefit due to service tax payment after Audit objection

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed cenvat credit on repair and maintenance of a residential colony, citing no nexus with the final product manufacture. The appellant argued that these expenses were considered in the books for calculating Central Excise Duty liability, meeting the definition of 'input service.' The Tribunal agreed, allowing cenvat benefit for the period before an amendment to the definition of 'input service.'

2. Cenvat credit was denied on an invoice mentioning a different location of the appellant. The appellant clarified that the issue was regularized by the Service Tax Authorities of the other unit, supporting their claim with a letter from the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal found no fraud or misuse, permitting cenvat credit on the disputed invoice.

3. The denial of cenvat benefit due to the service tax payment post-Audit objection was contested by the appellant. They argued that since the payment was made before the show cause notice, Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules should not apply. The Tribunal agreed, stating that without allegations of suppression or fraud, the embargo under Rule 9 should not hinder cenvat benefit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---