Tribunal allows appeal on Cenvat Credit for construction services in factory setup dispute

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order denying Cenvat Credit for construction services used in setting up a factory for manufacturing excisable goods. The definition of "input service" during the disputed period explicitly covered services related to establishing a factory, making the Board's Circular inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized the eligibility of Cenvat Credit for such construction services, aligning with previous judicial precedents and overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and Additional Commissioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit for construction services availed for setting up the factory.
2. Adjudication of Show Cause Notice and imposition of penalty.
3. Interpretation of the definition of "input service" under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Applicability of Board's Circular dated 04.01.08 on availing construction services for setting up a factory.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, availed construction services for setting up their factory during 2006-2008 and claimed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 8,02,244. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice based on a Board's Circular denying the credit, leading to confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty by the Additional Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appeal.

2. The appellant failed to appear for the hearing, resulting in an ex-parte decision as per Rule 2 of the CESTAT Procedural Rules, 1982. The Department defended the denial of Cenvat Credit citing the Board's Circular, emphasizing the correctness of the decision.

3. The definition of "input service" during the disputed period included services related to setting up a factory. The Tribunal noted that services for setting up a factory were explicitly covered under this definition. The Board's Circular, focused on renting immovable property, was deemed inapplicable when construction services were availed for manufacturing excisable goods, as per the Tribunal's previous ruling in a similar case. Consequently, the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

4. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the specific inclusion of services related to setting up a factory under the definition of "input service," distinguishing it from the context addressed in the Board's Circular. This nuanced interpretation aligned with previous judicial precedents, emphasizing the eligibility of Cenvat Credit for construction services utilized in manufacturing activities.

---