Tribunal Overturns CENVAT Credit Denial; Authorities Exceeded Jurisdiction by Assuming Exempted Activities Without Rule 9(6) Mention

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside by the Tribunal. The Commissioner initially denied CENVAT credit based on assumptions of exempted activities at the appellant's New Delhi office, which was deemed arbitrary. The Tribunal found the denial of credit beyond the scope of the show cause notice, as Rule 9(6) was not mentioned therein. The authorities were held to exceed their jurisdiction by going beyond the show cause notice. The appellant was granted any consequential relief as per the law, affirming the inadmissibility of assumptions as a basis for credit denial.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the admissibility of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on rent services of the appellant's New Delhi Office, the burden of proof under Rule 9(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the validity of the show cause notice invoking Rule 9(5) and Rule 9(6) ibid.

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit:
The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting their appeal due to the possibility of providing exempted excise duty activities from the New Delhi premises, leading to the ineligibility of the CENVAT credit under Rule 9(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for recovering the CENVAT credit amount and penalty. However, the Commissioner decided in favor of the appellant regarding nexus and registration issues. The appellant argued that the denial of credit was based on vague assumptions and presumptions, which should not be sufficient to deny the credit. The Commissioner's decision to deny the credit solely on assumptions was deemed arbitrary and not in accordance with the law.

Burden of Proof and Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice was issued based on presumption, invoking Rule 9(5) ibid for the appellant's failure to produce proof of credit admissibility. However, the Commissioner denied the credit under Rule 9(6) ibid, which was not mentioned in the show cause notice. Rule 9(5) pertains to input/capital goods, while Rule 9(6) concerns input services, and both are independent. The judgment highlighted that the authorities cannot go beyond the show cause notice, citing legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the impugned order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice, it was deemed unsustainable and set aside. Consequently, the appeal by the appellant was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.

Separate Judgement:
The Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial), delivered the judgment on the admissibility of CENVAT credit and the burden of proof under Rule 9(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appellant's appeal.

---