2018 (10) TMI 895 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants CENVAT Credit, emphasizing procedural fairness and substantive rights.

The Tribunal set aside the denial of CENVAT Credit on certain input services, citing inconsistencies in the Revenue's approach and procedural lapses. The ... CENVAT Credit - input services - Manpower Services - BIS Fees - Clearing and Forwarding charges - Tangible goods services - Held that:- In the assessee/appellant’s own case THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. [FORMERLY MADRAS CEMENTS LTD.] VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2016 (7) TMI 1072 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein, the Ld. adjudicating authority himself has allowed for a later period the CENVAT Credit availed on BIS Certification Fees, Manpower Services and Clearing and Forwarding charges; and submitted that the denial in the impugned Order is therefore unsustainable - Revenue having accepted and allowed the availment of CENVAT Credit, cannot change its stand for any reasons and for different period - credit allowed. Clearing and forwarding services - Held that:- The credit is allowable only up to the place of removal i.e., the factory gate of the appellant, in terms of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. & S.T. Vs. M/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the denial, if any, beyond the factory gate is held to be in order - matter remanded for this purpose of verification. Tangible Goods Services - duty paying document - it is the case of the Revenue that mandatory Service Tax Registration Number has not been mentioned in the invoice and therefore, that invoice was not a valid document - Held that:- Issue decided in the case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Bangalore [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - credit allowed. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. Issues:1. Denial of CENVAT Credit on input services.2. Adjudication by lower authorities.3. Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT Credit on input servicesThe assessee, a manufacturer of PPC Cement, availed credit of service tax paid on input services. A Show Cause Notice alleged that the assessee availed credit on ineligible input services, proposing to deny credit under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Order-in-Original disallowed credit to an extent, leading to an appeal. The Ld. Consultant argued that the issue was settled in previous cases, emphasizing the denial's unsustainability. The Tribunal found the denial of credit on certain services unsustainable due to the Revenue's inconsistent stand on allowing credit for the same services in a later period. However, credit for clearing and forwarding services beyond the factory gate was held to be in order as per a Supreme Court ruling. Regarding tangible goods services, the Tribunal noted a procedural lapse in mentioning the Service Tax Registration Number, but following legal precedents, it held that substantive rights could not be denied for procedural lapses.Issue 2: Adjudication by lower authoritiesThe lower authorities disallowed CENVAT Credit on specific input services, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) rejected the claim, prompting the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal reviewed the explanations and arguments presented by both parties, considering past decisions and legal principles to determine the validity of the denial of credit. It found inconsistencies in the Revenue's approach to allowing credit for certain services, leading to the decision to set aside the denial of credit on those services. The Tribunal also referenced relevant case laws to support its decision on procedural lapses in claiming credit.Issue 3: Appeal before the Appellate TribunalThe assessee appealed the lower authorities' decision before the Appellate Tribunal. During the hearing, both parties presented their arguments, with the Ld. Consultant citing past decisions to support the appeal. The Tribunal carefully examined the details of the Show Cause Notice and the arguments presented by both sides. It referenced legal precedents and specific rulings to justify its decision to allow the appeal to the extent indicated. The Tribunal pronounced its decision on 10.10.2018, setting aside the denial of CENVAT Credit on certain input services based on legal principles and consistent application of rules and precedents.