2015 (2) TMI 961 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants win appeal for CENVAT Credit on input services despite timing, clarifying entitlement rules

ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASIK

The appellants appealed against the demand of duty on exempted goods, claiming input service credit without paying duty under Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat ... CENVAT Credit - appellants have distributed the credit of the service availed prior to April 2011 therefore, it was of the view of the lower authorities that from April 2011 the appellants are not entitled to take CENVAT Credit on these goods - Held that:- The issue of availment of service prior to April 2011 is not in dispute. Therefore, I hold that as per Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, during the relevant time, the appellants are entitled to take CENVAT Credit on inputs service namely security service. It is immaterial whether the same is taken later on as held in the Circular No. 943/04/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011. In these circumstances, I hold the appellants are entitled to take CENVAT Credit and are not required to reverse the amount equivalent to 5%/10% of the value of the exempted goods. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal against demand of duty on exempted goods, availing input service credit without payment of duty under Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The judgment in this case revolves around the appeal made by the appellants against the demand of duty on exempted goods, along with interest and penalties, based on the allegation that they were availing input service credit without payment of duty under Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants contended that prior to April 2011, Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was in force, allowing specified services for input service credit if the assessee was engaged in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods. The appellants distributed the credit of the service availed before April 2011, leading to the lower authorities' view that they were not entitled to take CENVAT Credit on these goods post-April 2011. The Circular No. 943/04/2011-CX dated 29th April 2011 was cited to support the appellants' argument. On the other hand, the learned A.R. argued that Rule 6(5) was deleted from the statutory books post-April 2011, and the Circular referred to by the appellants was specific to rent-a-cab services, not security services as availed by the appellants.The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the issue of availing services before April 2011 was not in dispute. It was held that as per Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the relevant period, the appellants were entitled to take CENVAT Credit on input services such as security services. The timing of when the credit was taken was deemed immaterial, as per Circular No. 943/04/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that they were entitled to take CENVAT Credit and were not obligated to reverse the amount equivalent to 5%/10% of the value of the exempted goods. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.This judgment clarifies the entitlement of appellants to avail CENVAT Credit on input services, particularly in cases where services were availed before a specific regulatory change. It underscores the importance of adhering to relevant rules and circulars in determining the eligibility for input service credit, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the appellants in this case.