CENVAT credit on construction inputs upheld under Rule 3 for renting services, no separate accounts required

CESTAT, Chennai dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' order allowing CENVAT credit to the respondent. It held that under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, a manufacturer or taxable service provider may avail and utilize credit from a common pool for payment of excise duty and service tax without separate accounts for manufacture and services. Since the respondent was duly registered for renting of immovable property service and paid service tax on such output service, credit of duties/taxes on capital goods, inputs, and input services used in construction was validly utilized.

---

---

Issues:
- Utilization of CENVAT credit for renting of immovable property service
- Nexus between credit taken and services provided
- Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules
- Department's contention on maintaining separate credit accounts
- Applicability of Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST

Utilization of CENVAT Credit for Renting of Immovable Property Service:
The case involved a manufacturer of satellite and aircraft components also providing renting of immovable property service. The Department alleged that the CENVAT credit utilized by the manufacturer for paying service tax on renting of immovable property service did not have a nexus with the service provided. The original authority upheld the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, leading to the Department's appeal.

Nexus Between Credit Taken and Services Provided:
The Department argued that the manufacturer could not use credit on capital goods, inputs, and service tax not directly related to the renting of immovable property service. The Department relied on Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST, stating that input credit could only be taken if the output was a service liable to service tax. The authorized representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the validity of the credit utilization.

Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, allowing manufacturers and service providers to take credit of specified duties for discharging duty liability. The manufacturer, also a service provider, utilized the common pool credit for both excise duty and service tax payment. The Tribunal noted that the rules did not mandate separate credit accounts for different purposes, thus supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

Department's Contention on Maintaining Separate Credit Accounts:
The Department contended that the manufacturer/service provider should maintain separate accounts for credit related to excisable goods and services provided. However, the Tribunal held that the common CENVAT Credit Rules did not impose such a requirement, enabling the use of credit from a common pool for various purposes without segregation.

Applicability of Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST:
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's reliance on the circular, emphasizing that the manufacturer was registered as a service provider for renting of immovable property service, making the credit utilization valid. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal by the Department.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the validity of utilizing CENVAT credit for paying service tax on renting of immovable property service and rejecting the Department's contention on maintaining separate credit accounts.

---