2021 (4) TMI 425 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for fair reconsideration of denied Cenvat credit, emphasizes need for proper submissions and personal hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration. The denial of Cenvat credit on input services was ... CENVAT Credit - input services - Air Travel Agent service - Club or Association service - Event Management service - Fashion Designing service - Franchise Service - Interior Decorator service - Outdoor Catering service - Rail Travel Agent service - Renting on immovable property service - Rent-a-cab Operator service - Tour Operator service - Travel Agent Services - credit denied on the ground that no evidence was produced by the appellant to prove that the services was availed by the appellant and also on the ground that there is no nexus between the services with the manufacture and clearance of the goods or for their business activity. HELD THAT:- All the services per se are prima facie input services held in various judgments, however, the admissibility of Cenvat credit on these services can be decided on the basis that whether the services were used for the purpose specified in the definition of input service - The appellant along with this appeal submitted various documents such invoices, CA certificates etc, but since the said documents were not considered by the lower authority, the denial of credit is not correct as the same is on presumption basis. The entire matter needs to be re-considered in the light of the various documents submitted by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit on various input services.Analysis:The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, contested the denial of Cenvat credit on input services like Air Travel Agent, Event Management, Renting on immovable property, etc. The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the credit citing lack of evidence and nexus with manufacturing or business activities. The appellant argued that all services were used in relation to manufacturing or business, supported by documents like invoices and CA certificates. Despite submitting these documents to the Adjudicating Authority, the order was passed without considering them. The appellant relied on precedents like M/s ESSAR OIL LTD and COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD to support their case.The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, upheld the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of evidence and nexus with business activities.After hearing both parties, the Tribunal observed that while the services were prima facie input services, the denial of credit was based on a lack of consideration of documents submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the denial was on a presumption basis, and thus, the matter needed reconsideration in light of the documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The appellant was directed to submit all relevant documents, with the assurance of a fair opportunity for submissions and a personal hearing during the fresh adjudication.Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority, with the Tribunal's decision pronounced on 17.03.2021.