Cenvat Credit for Factory Setup Services hinges on harmonised reading of input service definition and specific exclusions

Cenvat credit on services used during setting up of a factory must be tested against the main definition of input service read harmoniously with the post-2011 exclusions. Services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture may remain eligible, but construction and works contract services used for construction of a building or civil structure fall within the specific exclusion and are not admissible. The claim therefore requires service-wise factual verification. The commentary also notes that denial of credit under Rule 4(7) cannot be sustained without examining the assessee's defence that credit was taken within the prescribed period and reflected in ST-3 returns; that objection requires fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cenvat credit on services used during setting up of the factory was admissible under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 after the 2011 and 2012 amendments, where the services were otherwise covered by the main part of the definition and not by the excluded construction-related category; (ii) Whether the denial of credit of Rs. 29,29,272/- under Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be sustained when the assessee's defence based on ST-3 returns and limitation of availment was not examined.

Issue (i): Whether cenvat credit on services used during setting up of the factory was admissible under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 after the 2011 and 2012 amendments, where the services were otherwise covered by the main part of the definition and not by the excluded construction-related category.

Analysis: The definition of input service was read as having a wide main part and an inclusive part, to be construed harmoniously. Deletion of the words relating to setting up did not, by itself, take away credit for services which were otherwise used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture. At the same time, the specific post-2011 exclusion for construction and works contract services used for construction of a building or civil structure had to be given effect, and services falling within that exclusion could not qualify as input service. The credit claim therefore required a fresh factual examination service-wise to see whether each item fell within the main definition or within the exclusion.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied merely because the services related to setting up of the factory, but services covered by the specific exclusion remained inadmissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the denial of credit of Rs. 29,29,272/- under Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be sustained when the assessee's defence based on ST-3 returns and limitation of availment was not examined.

Analysis: The assessee's plea that the credit was taken within the prescribed period and reflected in the relevant returns was supported by documents, but the adjudicating authority had not returned findings on that defence. Since the factual basis for denial under Rule 4(7) had not been properly examined, the demand on this count could not be sustained at that stage.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this count was set aside and the matter required reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after examining the admissibility of each service and the limitation-based objection under Rule 4(7).

Ratio Decidendi: An input service credit claim must be tested by reading the main and inclusive limbs of the definition harmoniously, while giving full effect to specific exclusions; a denial cannot stand where the factual defence supporting timely availment has not been examined.

---