Appellant's Cenvat credit claim rejected, case remanded for thorough examination of limitation issue.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that a separate division availed cenvat credit on construction services, emphasizing that such credit applies to a manufacturer's own factory premises. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original Adjudicating Authority to thoroughly examine the limitation issue regarding the issuance of the show cause notice, directing a comprehensive review of all evidence and allowing the appellant to present their case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Availment of cenvat credit on service tax paid for construction services by a separate division of the assessee.
2. Disallowance of cenvat credit by the Revenue and subsequent proceedings initiated.
3. Claim of common ownership and registration of the appellant and the separate division.
4. Challenge on the point of limitation regarding the issuance of show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable products, availed cenvat credit on service tax paid for construction services used by a separate division named Tech Textile, a 100% EOU. The Revenue contended that such credit was not permissible, leading to a demand for return of the credit amount.
2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant based on a show cause notice proposing disallowance of the credit amount. The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, prompting the appellant to appeal.
3. The appellant argued that Tech Textile and the appellant were not distinct entities, with Tech Textile being a separate division within the same premises. They highlighted common assets and registrations, asserting that both units belonged to the same limited company. The appellant claimed that the construction services qualified as input services based on Tribunal decisions.
4. The Revenue, represented by the DR, supported the denial of credit, aligning with the lower authorities' reasoning. The appellant challenged the limitation aspect, emphasizing that the credit availed in 2010 was questioned through a show cause notice issued in 2013.
5. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, rejected the appellant's contention that Tech Textile was part of their own unit. It emphasized that cenvat credit for construction services applies to a manufacturer's own factory premises, not to a separate unit, even if under the same group. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding common balance sheets and registration.
6. Regarding the limitation issue, the Commissioner (A) noted that the department discovered the credit related to the 100% EOU during scrutiny of the ER-1 return, filed quarterly. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for a detailed examination of documentary evidence, including ER-1, to address the limitation issue thoroughly.
7. The appeal was disposed of with the direction for the Adjudicating Authority to decide on the limitation matter after a comprehensive review of all relevant evidence, providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case.

[Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.11.2016]

---