2018 (12) TMI 549 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed, emphasizing factual presentation for CENVAT credit eligibility.

M/s. Flowserve Sanmar Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the remand order but modifying the directions for fresh adjudication based on presented facts. The judgment emphasized ... CENVAT Credit - various input services - denial on account of nexus - Held that:- When the Revenue entertains a doubt as to the use of the impugned services in relation to the manufacture of final product, it is the primary duty of the assessee to place facts first and then address the issue of eligibility with the aid of decided case laws as to availing of input service tax Credit on the services. The appellant in the appeal memo has filed copy of its replies filed in response to the Show Cause Notices and on a perusal of the same, it is found that the appellant has rather proceeded to address the eligibility taking shelter under various case laws instead of first satisfying the first question. It is deemed proper to modify his directions and direct the adjudicating authority not to be influenced by any of the findings/directions of the Commissioner (Appeals), rather restrict himself to the doubts entertained in the Show Cause Notice and pass a fresh adjudication Order - appeal dismissed. Issues:Common issues involving eligibility of input services for CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The appeals involved three Show Cause Notices alleging the assessee availed CENVAT credit on various services not connected to the manufacture of the final product, making them ineligible as per Rule 2(l)(ii) and Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Additional Commissioner, in Orders-in-Original, dropped further proceedings after finding the impugned services eligible based on records, replies, and judicial precedents.The Revenue appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the case back to verify the eligibility of each service as the adjudicating authority did not provide findings on the nature of services and applicable case laws. The assessee then filed appeals challenging this decision.During the hearing, both parties presented their arguments, and the Member (Judicial) examined the case, emphasizing the duty of the assessee to present facts when doubts arise regarding service usage in relation to the final product manufacture. The Member noted that the appellant focused on case laws rather than addressing the primary question of service usage. Referring to previous judgments, it was highlighted that facts must precede eligibility determination.The Member acknowledged the necessity of presenting facts first and directed the adjudicating authority to base decisions on the doubts raised in the Show Cause Notice, disregarding the Commissioner (Appeals) findings. The Member emphasized the importance of placing all relevant facts on record for a fair adjudication process. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the remand order but modifying the directions for fresh adjudication based on presented facts.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the importance of factual presentation by the assessee when facing doubts regarding service usage for CENVAT credit eligibility. The decision emphasized the need for a thorough examination of facts before determining eligibility, highlighting the duty of the assessee to provide necessary information for fair adjudication.