2020 (6) TMI 61 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants relief, sets aside penalties & interest as appellant complies with Cenvat Credit Rules.

Mafatlal Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad

The Tribunal set aside all demands, including penalties and interest, as the appellant complied with the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appeal was allowed with ... CENVAT Credit - input services - Management Consultancy Services - Security Services - allegation that the invoices did not carry either serial number or service tax registration number - wrongful transfer of credit - lack of nexus on input services - Medi-claim, Vehicle Insurance, Canteen Exp., CHA Bills, Guest House, Vehicle Hire Charges, Membership Charges, Residential Premise - credit on ISD invoices issued by appellant’s Mumbai and Ahmedabad branch for services received by the said units prior to their registration - common input services for both exempted and dutiable clearances. Demand of ₹ 3,30,189/- cenvat credit - Allegation that invoices issued in respect of ‘Management Consultancy Services’ and ‘Security Services’ have been wrongly availed as invoices for the same did not carry either serial number or service tax registration number - January, 2005 to February, 2011 - HELD THAT:- This is a technical infraction and moreover this error is not on the part of the appellant but on the part of the service provider who issued the invoices. It is not a case of the department that in said invoices, no service tax was paid and there is no dispute about receipt and use of the services, which are the main criteria for allowing Cenvat credit on input service. Therefore, the credit, only on the technical infraction should not be denied. Demand of ₹ 41,94,123/- Cenvat credit - allegation that the credit lying in the account of branches other than Nadiad, has been wrongly transferred under centralized registration without any documents - Period 2011 - HELD THAT:-The appellant undisputedly made necessary recording in the statutory books of transfree's branch. There is no document prescribed for such transfers. There is no case of the department that the transferor branches have transferred excess credit or wrong credit. It is also not a case of the department that the Cenvat credit transferred is not out of the credit availed by the branches - only on the ground that proper documents under centralised registration was not issued for transfer of credit cannot be denied. Demand of ₹ 5,59,851/- Cenvat credit - input services - Medi-claim - Vehicle Insurance - Canteen Exp. - CHA Bills - Guest House - Vehicle Hire Charges - Membership Charges - Residential Premise - demand on the ground that the said services do not have any nexus to the manufacturing activity carried out by the appellant. Period - January 2005 to February, 2011 - HELD THAT:- This issue has been considered time and again by this Tribunal and credit of all the services have been allowed in various judgments - reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF S.T., CHENNAI VERSUS SPECTRASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [2019 (5) TMI 716 - CESTAT CHENNAI] for mediclaim - For Canteen and Insurance Services, reliance can be placed in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-III, COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P.) LTD. [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - for vehicle insurance reliance can be placed in M/S VINAYAK STEELS LTD. VERSUS CCE, C & ST, HYDERABAD [2017 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT HYDERABAD]. Demand of ₹ 39,60,634/- Cenvat credit - demand pertains to ISD invoices issued by appellant’s Mumbai and Ahmedabad branch for services received by the said units prior to their registration as Input Service Distributors - Period – 2010 - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has considered the issue of ISD invoices issued prior to registration and held that for this reason Cenvat credit cannot be denied. Demand of ₹ 14,16,83,202/- - amount payable in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules for availing Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services used for both exempted and dutiable clearances - Period August, 2007 to September, 2011 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant have reversed Cenvat credit much more than the Cenvat credit attributed to common input service used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The appellant have also paid interest on such reversal. As per option available under Rule 6, one of the option is that appellant is required to reverse proportionate credit in terms of sub-Rule 3(A) of said Rule on the inputs and input service attributed to exempted goods and therefore, in the present case, when the appellant have reversed the credit, which should be proportionate credit on the common input service attributed to the exempted goods and also paid interest - the appellant have reversed Cenvat credit which is more than the proportionate credit attributed to exempted goods - The entire demand raised under Rule 6 will not sustain. Since the entire demand has been set-aside, consequently penalties and demand of interest are also set-aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Demand of Cenvat Credit due to improper invoices for 'Management Consultancy Services' and 'Security Services'.2. Demand of Cenvat Credit due to wrongful transfer of credit under centralized registration without proper documents.3. Demand of Cenvat Credit for services not having nexus to manufacturing activity.4. Demand of Cenvat Credit on ISD invoices issued before registration.5. Demand of amount payable under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules for availing credit on input services used for both exempted and dutiable clearances.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Demand of Cenvat Credit due to improper invoices for 'Management Consultancy Services' and 'Security Services':The demand of Rs. 3,30,189/- was based on the ground that certain invoices did not carry either serial number or service tax registration number. The Tribunal found this to be a technical infraction, not warranting denial of credit. It was emphasized that the error was on the part of the service provider, not the appellant. The Tribunal cited the case of Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Limited vs. CCE Bangalore, where it was established that such technical discrepancies should not lead to denial of credit. Consequently, this demand was set aside.2. Demand of Cenvat Credit due to wrongful transfer of credit under centralized registration without proper documents:A demand of Rs. 41,94,123/- was confirmed on the basis that credit was transferred without proper documents. The Tribunal noted that there was no statutory requirement for specific documents for such transfers. It was also established that the credit transferred was not in excess or incorrect. The case of Central Bank of India vs. CCE, Bhopal was cited, which held that such objections are merely technical errors without revenue loss. Consequently, this demand was set aside.3. Demand of Cenvat Credit for services not having nexus to manufacturing activity:The demand of Rs. 5,59,851/- was for services such as Medi-claim, Vehicle Insurance, Canteen Expenses, etc., which were claimed to not have a nexus to manufacturing. The Tribunal referenced multiple judgments, including CST, Chennai vs. Spectrasoft Technologies Limited and CCE, Bangalore vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Limited, which allowed credit for these services. Consequently, this demand was set aside.4. Demand of Cenvat Credit on ISD invoices issued before registration:A demand of Rs. 39,60,634/- was confirmed on the ground that credit was availed on ISD invoices issued before the registration of the units. The Tribunal cited the case of mPortal (I) Wireless Solutions (P) Limited vs. CST, Bangalore, where it was held that credit cannot be denied merely because ISD invoices were issued before registration. Consequently, this demand was set aside.5. Demand of amount payable under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules for availing credit on input services used for both exempted and dutiable clearances:The major demand of Rs. 14,16,83,202/- was confirmed under Rule 6 for not maintaining separate accounts for exempted and dutiable goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had reversed more than the proportionate credit attributable to exempted goods and paid interest. It was established that as per Rule 6, the appellant had the option to reverse proportionate credit. The Tribunal cited the case of Mercedes Benz India (P) Limited, which confirmed that the appellant could choose any option under Rule 6. Consequently, this demand was set aside.Conclusion:All demands were set aside by the Tribunal, including penalties and interest, as the appellant had complied with the necessary provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.