2014 (7) TMI 895 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal allows cross-utilization of cenvat credit for service tax, dismissing Revenue's appeal.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Versus Thangavel & Sons (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the respondent's right to utilize cenvat credit on inputs for payment of service tax on output services, emphasizing the absence of ... Utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of service tax - cenvat credit by the respondents earned on the inputs received for manufacture of excisable goods towards payment of service tax for 'Business Auxiliary Service' - Held that:- the respondents are not only a manufacturer of excisable goods but also the provider of output services and both the activities are carried out in the same premises. Respondents are eligible for availment of input credit, they can utilize the cenvat credit available with them either for payment of excise duty on the final products or for payment of service tax on the output services as stipulated in the sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of CCR 2004. The restrictions on utilization of cenvat credit stipulated in the CCR relates only for specific type of duties i.e. education cess on excisable goods or payment of educational cess on output services. There is no restriction for utilization of common input credit availed on the inputs and also on input services for payment of excise duty or service tax - there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that utilization of input cenvat credit availed by the respondents for payment of service tax on the output service of Business Auxiliary Services rendered by them - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Dispute over the utilization of cenvat credit by the respondent for payment of service tax on Business Auxiliary Service.2. Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules and their application in the case.3. Admissibility of cenvat credit for payment of service tax on output services.4. Consideration of case laws and precedents regarding cross-utilization of credit.Analysis:Issue 1:The main contention in the appeal was regarding the utilization of cenvat credit by the respondent, who is a manufacturer of excisable goods and also provides Business Auxiliary Service. The Revenue challenged the allowance of credit availed on inputs for payment of service tax on services rendered under BAS.Issue 2:The CENVAT Credit Rules were analyzed to determine the eligibility of the respondent to avail input credit and utilize it for service tax payment. Rule 3(4) of the CCR 2004 allows for the utilization of cenvat credit for payment of excise duty on final products or service tax on output services. The restrictions on credit utilization are specific to certain duties and do not prohibit cross-utilization of common input credit.Issue 3:The Commissioner (Appeals) had decided in favor of the respondent, confirming the admissibility of cenvat credit availed by them. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that once the eligibility for input credit is established, it can be used for payment of service tax on output services, as per Rule 3(4) of the CCR 2004.Issue 4:The Tribunal referred to case laws such as CCE Coimbatore Vs Lakshmi Technology & Engineering Indus. Ltd. and S.S Engieers Vs CCE Pune to support the contention that cross-utilization of credit from a common pool for different purposes is permissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the respondent's right to utilize cenvat credit on inputs for payment of service tax on output services, emphasizing the absence of restrictions on cross-utilization of credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The decision was supported by relevant case laws and precedents, establishing the legality of the respondent's actions in this case.