2018 (12) TMI 546 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant Denied Tax Credit on Transportation Services for Lack of Manufacturing Activities

Lotte India Corporation Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Commissionerate

The Tribunal ruled that the appellant, as a principal manufacturer, was not eligible for service tax credit on transportation services for inputs and ... CENVAT Credit - denial of credit on the ground that appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods - credit of service tax paid on GTA Services availed for transport of inputs from the supplier to factory of job worker - GTA Services for transport of finished goods from the factory of job worker to the appellant’s depot - penalty - Held that:- The issue stands decided in appellant own case LOTTE INDIA CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRY [2014 (2) TMI 482 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that credit cannot be allowed - denial of credit justified. Penalty - Held that:- The issue is interpretational one and also taking note of the fact that the appellant has filed the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court on the bonafide belief that the credit is eligible, the penalty imposed are unjustified and requires to be set aside. Appeal allowed in part. Issues Involved:- Eligibility of credit for service tax paid on transportation services for inputs and finished goods.- Principal manufacturer's relationship with job worker.- Applicability of Cenvat credit rules.- Interpretation of legal provisions regarding service tax credit.Eligibility of Credit for Service Tax Paid on Transportation Services:The appellant, a principal manufacturer, contended that their job worker, acting as an agent, manufactured goods on their behalf, making them eligible for service tax credit on transportation services. However, the department denied the credit, arguing that the appellant was not the manufacturer. The Tribunal, considering previous decisions, held that since the appellant did not perform manufacturing activities or pay excise duty, they could not claim credit for service tax on transportation of inputs and final products. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not meet the criteria for claiming credit under the Cenvat credit rules.Principal Manufacturer's Relationship with Job Worker:The appellant's argument that the job worker was their agent and manufacturer on their behalf was contested by the department, asserting that the appellant was not entitled to credit. The Tribunal, based on the facts presented, concluded that the job worker or the appellant could have claimed credit if the service tax burden was borne by the entity paying duty on the final product. However, attempting to bypass established procedures for credit claiming based on revenue neutrality or hypothetical scenarios was not acceptable. The Tribunal acknowledged a partial merit in the appellant's argument regarding the absence of intention to evade duty for certain components, limiting the demand period accordingly.Applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules:The Tribunal referenced legal interpretations and precedents to determine the admissibility of credit for transportation services. It highlighted the confusion surrounding the interpretation of the term 'input service' and the scope of service tax credit for clearance of final products. While acknowledging differing views, the Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, restricting the demand period due to legal interpretation issues. The Tribunal also set aside a penalty imposed in consideration of the interpretational nature of the issue.Interpretation of Legal Provisions Regarding Service Tax Credit:In analyzing the case, the Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and previous legal decisions. It noted that the issue was interpretational, leading to a decision that credit was not admissible for the appellant. The Tribunal, recognizing the appellant's genuine belief in the eligibility of credit, waived the penalties imposed while upholding the demand and interest. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance legal interpretations, setting aside penalties based on the interpretational nature of the issue and the appellant's good faith appeal to the High Court.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and the legal reasoning behind it.