Tribunal grants hotel CENVAT credit for construction services linked to hotel business

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, a hotel, regarding the entitlement to CENVAT credit for construction services used in building and renovating hotel rooms. The Tribunal held that the construction service had a nexus with the overall hotel business, making it eligible for credit under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Referencing a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the Revenue's argument and granted the appellant the CENVAT credit, emphasizing the common usage of the hotel building for both taxable and non-taxable services.

---

---

Issues involved: Whether the appellant, a hotel, is entitled to CENVAT credit for 'construction service' used in constructing additional rooms and repairing hotel rooms.

Analysis:
1. Submission by Appellant: The appellant's representative, a Chartered Accountant, argued that the construction service used for building rooms and repairing hotel rooms is an input service essential for providing overall hotel services. He contended that even if some activities in the hotel are non-taxable, the construction service credit is admissible under Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. He cited a previous Tribunal order and a judgment to support his argument.

2. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue representative countered that the appellant only pays service tax for specific services unrelated to the construction service used exclusively for non-taxable activities. Therefore, Rule 6(5) should not apply to allow the credit.

3. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal examined the case and noted that the appellant availed CENVAT credit for construction services used in building and renovating hotel rooms. The key issue was the eligibility of CENVAT credit as per Rule 6(5). The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument, stating that the construction service had a nexus with the overall hotel business conducted within the common hotel building. Therefore, the credit was deemed admissible under Rule 6(5). The Tribunal referenced a similar case from the Chennai bench where CENVAT credit was allowed for a hotel building used for renting hotel services. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the construction service used in the hotel building, despite some non-taxable activities, qualified for CENVAT credit under Rule 6(5). The decision was based on the common usage of the hotel building for both taxable and non-taxable services, establishing the nexus required for credit eligibility.

---