2017 (7) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns disallowance of CENVAT credit on maintenance services. Appellant to prove nexus.

Finolex Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of CENVAT credit on services for maintenance of a guest house and residential colony by M/s Finolex Industries ... CENVAT credit - input services - provider of lift maintenance service - catering service at the guest house of the appellant - house-keeping service in their residential colony - Held that: - The nexus of the production facility to the guest house and residential colony is a question of fact. This needs to be ascertained and can be done only at the level of the original authority - The impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the original authority to enable appellant to be afforded an opportunity to establish that the guest house and residential colony are in some manner connected to the production process and thereby entitled to claim tax paid on input services deployed at the facilities as CENVAT credit - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Disallowance of CENVAT credit on services utilized for maintenance of guest house and residential colony.In this appeal, the issue revolves around the disallowance of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,11,961/- availed by M/s Finolex Industries Ltd during 2006-07 on tax paid for lift maintenance service, catering service at the guest house, and house-keeping service in their residential colony. The contention raised by the appellant is that the staff temporarily deputed to the manufacturing facility at Ratnagiri utilize these facilities, which are considered accommodation for manufacturing-related activities. The appellant argues that the tax on services utilized for maintenance of the guest house should be eligible for credit as per the definition of input services in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Reference is made to relevant case laws, including Castex Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Alwar, and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. The appellant also asserts that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish that the services were not utilized for manufacturing activities.The Authorized Representative, on the other hand, argues that the appellant failed to provide evidence or demonstrate any nexus between the services and their manufacturing activity. Reference is made to the decision in IFB Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, emphasizing the requirement of positive evidence to support the appellant's claim. The Tribunal had previously directed a re-examination of the matter based on evidence related to the utilization of the guest house, which the appellant claims was decided in their favor upon re-examination by the original authority.Upon careful review, it is noted that the show cause notice alleged that the services were unrelated to the appellant's output, necessitating the appellant to establish the contrary. However, the reply to the show cause notice did not assert any such connection. The eligibility for CENVAT credit of services not directly used in the manufacturing facility is deemed to be determined on a case-by-case basis to establish their nexus with the manufacturing process. The Tribunal sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the original authority for the appellant to demonstrate the connection between the guest house, residential colony, and the production process. The adjudicating authority is directed to resolve the dispute within three months while ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.