2012 (5) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants transfer of CENVAT credit for 'input services' under Rule 10

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the transfer of CENVAT credit on 'input services' under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. ... Waiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - CENVAT credit on ‘input services’ taken by “Telelogic” amounting to Rs. 1,47,34,988/- and similar CENVAT credit on ‘input services’ taken by “Cognos” amounting to Rs. 1,75,49,939/- were transferred to the appellant’s CENVAT account and taken by the latter - Held that:- appellant, are entitled to transfer of CENVAT credit on ‘input services’ also in respect of inputs and capital goods. On a conjoint reading of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 10, we have found prima facie case for the appellant. Accordingly there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the adjudged dues - Stay granted. Issues:1. Whether transfer of CENVAT credit on 'input services' is permissible under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.The judgment pertains to an application seeking waiver and stay regarding the transfer of CENVAT credit on 'input services' by the appellant from the CENVAT accounts of acquired companies. The appellant transferred CENVAT credit taken by the acquired companies to their account, leading to a dispute under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department argued that Rule 10 only allows transfer of credit on inputs and capital goods, not 'input services'. However, the appellant contended that they are entitled to transfer credit on 'input services' as well. The Tribunal analyzed sub-rules (1), (2), and (3) of Rule 10 and found a prima facie case for the appellant, leading to a decision in their favor for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the dues.In this case, the primary issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically concerning the transfer of CENVAT credit on 'input services'. The department's contention was that the rule only allows for the transfer of credit on inputs and capital goods, excluding 'input services'. Conversely, the appellant argued that they have the right to transfer CENVAT credit on 'input services' along with inputs and capital goods. The Tribunal carefully examined the provisions of Rule 10 and found a prima facie case supporting the appellant's position, leading to a decision in their favor.The Tribunal's analysis focused on the applicability of Rule 10 in the context of transferring CENVAT credit on 'input services'. After reviewing the records and arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had transferred substantial amounts of CENVAT credit on 'input services' from the acquired companies to their account. The department's interpretation restricted the transfer of credit on 'input services' under Rule 10, emphasizing the transfer of credit on inputs and capital goods. However, the Tribunal's interpretation allowed for the transfer of credit on 'input services' as well, aligning with the appellant's position and resulting in a decision in their favor for waiver and stay of recovery.Overall, the judgment addressed the dispute regarding the transfer of CENVAT credit on 'input services' under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. By examining the provisions of the rule and considering both parties' arguments, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim, leading to a favorable decision granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in relation to the disputed dues.