Tribunal allows CENVAT credit for road construction services overturning previous ruling

The Tribunal held that the appellant, M/s Kenersys India Pvt Ltd, was entitled to avail and utilize CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on road construction services. The decision overturned the previous ruling, affirming the appellant's eligibility for the credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's judgment was issued on 08/07/2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on services used for construction of roads.
2. Eligibility of CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Distinction between levy and collection of tax.
4. Responsibility of the service recipient regarding the classification and tax liability of the service provider.
5. Applicability of judicial precedents on the classification and tax liability issues.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Availment of CENVAT Credit on Services Used for Construction of Roads:
The core issue in the dispute was whether M/s Kenersys India Pvt Ltd could avail CENVAT credit for services used in constructing roads at remote project sites. The appellant argued that they utilized contractors for 'commercial or industrial construction' services, which included a service tax component, thus entitling them to CENVAT credit.

2. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, permits CENVAT credit for service tax leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act. The appellant contended that the payments made to contractors included service tax, which was duly discharged, making them eligible for CENVAT credit. The Revenue, however, argued that no tax was leviable on road construction, making the credit ineligible.

3. Distinction Between Levy and Collection of Tax:
The Revenue's argument hinged on the distinction between levy and collection, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. The term "levy" includes both imposition and assessment of tax, but not collection. The Revenue contended that since no tax was leviable on road construction, the collection was invalid.

4. Responsibility of the Service Recipient Regarding the Classification and Tax Liability of the Service Provider:
The appellant argued that as a service recipient, determining the leviability of tax was not their prerogative. They relied on the Tribunal's decision in Newlight Hotels and Resorts Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vadodara, which held that the service recipient could not challenge the classification or tax liability determined by the service provider. The Tribunal supported this view, noting that the service provider, being a registered assessee, would file returns and pay taxes, which the Revenue should scrutinize.

5. Applicability of Judicial Precedents on the Classification and Tax Liability Issues:
The appellant cited several judicial precedents, including Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane - I and Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, to support their claim. These cases established that the service recipient could not alter the classification or tax liability determined by the service provider. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the CENVAT credit scheme aims to avoid the cascading effect of taxes, and thus, credit should be allowed based on the service provider's invoice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible to avail and utilize CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on road construction services. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's eligibility for CENVAT credit was upheld. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in court on 08/07/2016.

---