Tribunal allows Cenvat credit for input services in machinery repair but denies credit for building renovation.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit for input services used in machinery repair, renovation, and modernization, as well as for untraceable input invoices. However, the claim for credit related to input services for the repair and renovation of the factory building and outside godown was rejected. The denial of Cenvat credit on carry bags used for exporting cigarettes was also overturned. The penalty was set aside, and the appeal was partially allowed based on the Tribunal's findings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit for input services used for repair, renovation, and modernization of machinery.
2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit for input services used for repair and renovation of factory building and outside godown.
3. Treatment of untraceable input invoices under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Denial of Cenvat credit on carry bags used for export of Cigarettes.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,27,102 for input services used in machinery repair, renovation, and modernization. The Tribunal found merit in this ground, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the credit.

2. Another issue involved the admissibility of Cenvat credit worth Rs. 53,234 for input services utilized in the repair and renovation of the factory building and outside godown. The Tribunal noted that reliance on a specific circular was not tenable, resulting in the rejection of this claim for credit.

3. The case also addressed the treatment of Rs. 1,30,595 related to untraceable input invoices. The appellant contended that the amount was reversed before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, citing Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the credit.

4. Lastly, the appellant disputed the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 4,068 on carry bags used for exporting cigarettes. The Tribunal sided with the appellant, stating that since the receipt of the bags was undisputed, the credit could not be denied. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this credit as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant on specific grounds related to Cenvat credit while rejecting others. The penalty of Rs. 4,15,001 was set aside, and the appeal was partially allowed based on the findings and conclusions outlined in the judgment delivered by Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD.

---