2022 (1) TMI 1123 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows cenvat credit for installation services to steel furniture manufacturer

The Tribunal overturned the decision of the adjudicating authority to disallow cenvat credit on commissioning and installation services for a steel ... Eligibility of cenvat credit for commissioning and installation services - post-manufacturing activity test - binding effect of prior Tribunal decision in identical facts - centralised registration and invoice issuance - scope of show cause notice and limitation on new allegationsEligibility of cenvat credit for commissioning and installation services - post-manufacturing activity test - binding effect of prior Tribunal decision in identical facts - scope of show cause notice and limitation on new allegations - Disallowance of cenvat credit availed on commissioning and installation services upheld below was unsustainable where identical issue had been decided in favour of the appellant in earlier Tribunal orders and no fresh allegation was made in the impugned SCNs/SODs. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal had earlier examined the same contention and held that the assembling/installation activity sub-contracted by the appellant was not a disqualifying post-manufacturing activity and therefore the credit was allowable. The Statement of Demand under challenge expressly stated that the facts and circumstances were identical to the earlier show cause notices. The adjudicating authority nevertheless denied credit on a new factual premise that the invoice was issued in the name of the appellant's head office while services were rendered at the Ambattur plant. The Court observed there is no legal prohibition on invoices being issued in the name of a head office which has centralised registration; centralised registration facilitates availment and distribution of credit. Further, where the SCN/SOD did not raise the alleged ground (non-registration as ISD or invoice in head office name), denial of credit on that unalleged basis could not be sustained. Applying the earlier Tribunal decision to the identical facts, the disallowance lacked legal and factual basis. [Paras 5, 6, 7]Impugned orders disallowing the credit are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief as per law.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's earlier decision in the appellant's case on identical facts governs the present periods; the adjudicating authority's fresh basis for denial (invoice in head office name) could not sustain where it was not pleaded in the SCN and centralised registration permits such invoicing. The disallowance was therefore set aside and the appeals allowed. Issues:- Availment of cenvat credit on commissioning and installation services deemed ineligible under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004.- Confirmation of demand for recovery of ineligible credit, interest, and penalties by adjudicating authority.- Appeals filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) against the orders upholding the demand.- Argument by the appellant citing a previous Tribunal decision in their favor on the same issue.- Support of findings in the impugned orders by the authorized representative.- Examination of the issue by the Tribunal in the appellant's previous case.- Observations and decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's previous case.- Allegations and findings in the statement of demand and earlier show cause notices.- Applicability of the previous Tribunal decision to the current case.- Legal and factual basis for disallowance of credit.Analysis:The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel furniture, availing cenvat credit on commissioning and installation services, which were deemed ineligible under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for recovery of the ineligible credit, along with interest and penalties, leading to the appellant filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that a previous Tribunal decision favored them on the same issue, highlighting that the facts and circumstances leading to the statements of demand were identical to earlier show cause notices. The authorized representative supported the findings in the impugned orders, leading to a detailed examination by the Tribunal.In the appellant's previous case, the Tribunal had observed that the main allegation against the appellant was that the credit was ineligible due to the assembling/installation activity being considered a post-manufacturing activity. However, the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant in the earlier periods, citing that the mere findings recorded in the order without specific allegations were not sufficient to deny the credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the facts and circumstances leading to the statements of demand were identical to the earlier show cause notices, indicating that the authorities should have applied the previous Tribunal decision and allowed the credit.The Tribunal further noted that the disallowance of credit lacked a legal or factual basis, emphasizing that the invoice being issued in the name of the appellant's Head office, which had centralized registration, did not restrict the credit availability. The Tribunal highlighted that the purpose of centralized registration was to facilitate credit availment and distribution, and disallowing credit based on an issue not alleged in the show cause notice was unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief as per law.