2015 (6) TMI 581 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants stay, waives pre-deposit, validates CENVAT Credit claim under Rule 9(1)(e) for service tax payment.

M/s Faurecia Automotive Seating India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-Delhi-III

M/s Faurecia Automotive Seating India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-Delhi-III - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 500 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for business support services received by the appellant company from its parent company.Analysis:The appellant company, engaged in manufacturing 'Automotive Seating Parts,' availed CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for business support services provided by its parent company in France. The dispute arose when the department found that the invoices were in the name of another entity, leading to a show cause notice for recovery of wrongly taken CENVAT Credit. The Commissioner upheld the demand, imposing a penalty as well. The appellant challenged this decision through an appeal.The appellant argued that the services were received at their Gurgaon Unit, which paid the service tax as the recipient, despite the invoices mentioning the Bangalore address. They contended that since the Gurgaon Unit paid the tax and the challans indicated the Gurgaon address, CENVAT Credit should not be denied. The appellant emphasized the operational shift from Bangalore to Gurgaon and the applicability of Rule 9(1)(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.The JCDR opposed the stay application, citing the Commissioner's findings that the appellant failed to prove the use of input services in manufacturing at the Gurgaon Unit. However, upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted the clear payment of service tax by the Gurgaon Unit for the services received from the parent company in France. The absence of discussion on the Bangalore Unit's closure in the impugned order was highlighted, emphasizing that the challans specifying the Gurgaon Unit as the assessee validated the CENVAT Credit claim under Rule 9(1)(e).Conclusively, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be incorrect and granted the appellant's stay application, waiving the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal hearing and staying the recovery process. The decision was based on the prima facie view that the CENVAT Credit should not be denied to the appellant given the payment details and relevant rules' application.