2019 (12) TMI 547 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Overturns Order, Affirms Appellant's Right to CENVAT Credit on Rent for Official Use Premises Based on Precedents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on rent for premises used exclusively for ... CENVAT Credit - input services - rent for the premises leased for the purpose of back office as well as for the purpose of residential accommodation for its Managing Director and other officials who visit Bangalore on official work - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the rental agreement shows that the premises can be used for residential/guesthouse and back office purposes and the appellant have used the same for the official purpose only. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R. K. Marbles [2016 (10) TMI 1289 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where the Tribunal has allowed the CENVAT credit on renting of immovable property service. Thus, the inclusive clause in the definition of input service covers the impugned input service - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on rent for residential premises- Interpretation of the definition of 'input service'- Application of judicial precedents in determining eligibility for CENVAT creditAnalysis:1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on rent for residential premises:The appeal revolved around the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on rent for premises used as a back office and residential accommodation. The department contended that the premises were not directly or indirectly related to the manufacturing process. However, the appellant argued that the premises were utilized for official purposes only, citing the rental agreement terms. The Tribunal noted that the premises could be used for both residential and office purposes, but the appellant had solely used it for official work. Relying on the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of R.K. Marbles, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the denial of credit was unjustifiable.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service':The appellant's counsel highlighted the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) and argued that the impugned service was not excluded by the exclusion clause introduced post-amendment in 2011. Reference was made to judicial decisions emphasizing the broad interpretation of 'input service,' including the use of 'includes' and 'in relation to.' The counsel cited cases such as Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation to support the argument. It was contended that the authorities had narrowly interpreted the definition of input service, overlooking the terms of the rent agreement.3. Application of judicial precedents in determining eligibility for CENVAT credit:The appellant's counsel further relied on judicial precedents, including the decision in the case of R.K. Marbles and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., to support the claim for CENVAT credit on renting of immovable property services. The Tribunal noted the relevance of these precedents in deciding similar cases and found the inclusive clause in the definition of input service covered the impugned service. By following the precedent set in the R.K. Marbles case, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on rent for premises used exclusively for official purposes, in line with established judicial precedents and the broad interpretation of 'input service.'