2016 (12) TMI 979 - AT - Central Excise

Court clarifies eligibility of input services for tax credit, remands for further evidence on specific services

The Ramco Cements Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry

The case involved a dispute over the eligibility of certain input services for cenvat credit. The Commissioner allowed credit on security service but ... Denial of CENVAT credit - various input services - eligible input services or not - Held that: - I hold that air travel agent’s service and renting of immovable property service are very much in the nature of ‘input service’ falling within the ambit of Rule 2 (l) ibid and hence appellant is eligible to avail the same. To this extent, impugned order is set aside. However, coming to the remaining disputed input services viz. tour operator service, repair and maintenance service and insurance service, matter is remanded back to the lower appellate authority to enable the appellant adduce necessary evidence in support of their claim that the same are not in the nature of services provided to employees or their spouses, and are very much used in or relation to the manufacturing or business activity and they are not disbarred from utilization of credit by Rule 2(l) ibid as it existed during the period of dispute. Taking note that the dispute has emanated on interpretational matters, the penalty imposed under Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules is an over kill and hence set aside. It is made clear that the remand is only for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility of input service tax credit in respect of these three services - Appeal disposed off - matter on remand. Issues: Denial of cenvat credit on various input services - eligibility of 'input service' - denial of credit on Air Travel Agent's Service, Tour Operator Service, Renting of Immovable Property Service, Repair and Maintenance Service, and Insurance Service.In this case, the main issue revolved around the denial of cenvat credit on several input services, with a focus on whether they fall within the definition of eligible 'input service.' The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit on security service but deemed Air Travel Agent's Service, Tour Operator Service, Renting of Immovable Property Service, Repair and Maintenance Service, and Insurance Service as ineligible input services.The first service in question was the Renting of Immovable Property Service. The denial of credit was based on the property being used for renting the sales office premises. However, it was argued that the Regional Sales office was for promoting sales, which falls under the definition of 'Sales Promotion' in the inclusive part of the rule, making it an eligible input service.Regarding the Air Travel Agent's Service, it was noted that it was used for the travel of executives for official tour purposes only, disputing any personal use indicated in the order.For the Tour Operator Service, both authorities denied credit due to alleged personal use by some employees. The appellant contended that the service was solely utilized for official duties, not personal use.Concerning the Repair and Maintenance Service, the lower appellate authority disallowed credit, claiming it was for office equipment like air conditioners and printers. The appellant argued that these services were used in their air-conditioned laboratory within the factory, justifying credit eligibility.In the case of Insurance Service, the denial was based on the coverage of group medical insurance claims for dealers and spouses, rather than insuring plant and machinery as claimed by the appellant.The judgment held that Air Travel Agent's Service and Renting of Immovable Property Service were indeed eligible input services. However, the matter was remanded back for Tour Operator Service, Repair and Maintenance Service, and Insurance Service to provide evidence that they were not for personal use and were related to manufacturing or business activities, as per Rule 2(l) during the dispute period.The penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules was set aside as an overkill due to interpretational matters, clarifying that the remand was solely to determine the eligibility of input service tax credit for the three disputed services.