2014 (10) TMI 287 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal disallows cenvat credit for construction inputs, allows for services. Pre-deposit required.

CITY REALTY & DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III

The Tribunal ruled in an appeal and stay petition against a service tax demand, finding that cenvat credit for inputs and capital goods used in ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Construction service - Held that:- As regards input services, which have gone in the construction of mall which is being used for rendering output services, the Tribunal has been consistently holding the view that credit of input services can be taken. IN the case of City Central Mall Nashik P. Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 68 - Bombay High Court], the Tribunal took a view that cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods which has been used in construction of immovable property cannot be taken and only input service credit would be permissible. In view of the above factual and legal position, we are of the prima facie view that the appellant is not eligible to take cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in the construction of the mall and would be eligible to credit only in respect of input services used in the construction of the mall - Partial stay granted. Issues:Service tax demand confirmation, denial of cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services used in construction for commercial purposes.Analysis:The judgment involves an appeal and stay petition against an order confirming a service tax demand and imposing penalties on a company for denying cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services used in constructing a commercial property. The appellant argued that they were entitled to credit based on precedents and circulars, emphasizing that the credit was taken before a specific date. The Revenue contended that credit could only be taken for inputs or capital goods, not construction services, and highlighted the lack of proper record-keeping by the appellant. The Tribunal considered both arguments and concluded that while credit for input services was permissible, credit for inputs and capital goods used in construction was not allowed. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit the amount of ineligible credit within a specified timeframe, with further actions contingent on compliance.This judgment addresses the eligibility of cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services used in constructing a property for commercial purposes. The appellant's reliance on precedents and circulars to support their claim for credit was considered, along with the Revenue's argument regarding the specific types of credit permissible. The Tribunal distinguished between input services and inputs/capital goods, allowing credit only for the former in this case. The decision was based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the construction in question. The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining proper records for claiming credits and sets a clear directive for the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement within a specified timeframe.Overall, the judgment provides a nuanced analysis of the cenvat credit eligibility concerning inputs, capital goods, and input services in the context of construction for commercial purposes. By referencing legal precedents, circulars, and specific rules, the Tribunal arrived at a decision that balanced the arguments presented by the appellant and the Revenue. The judgment underscores the significance of compliance with record-keeping requirements and sets a clear expectation for the appellant to adhere to the directive regarding the pre-deposit of the ineligible credit amount.