2024 (1) TMI 778 - AT - Service Tax

Input services received before registration eligible for CENVAT credit if used for output services

M/s. The Mahima Panorama Resident Welfare Society Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

M/s. The Mahima Panorama Resident Welfare Society Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - TMI Issues:The judgment deals with the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat Credit on input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period November 2012, considering the input services were received before obtaining registration and commencing output service.Comprehensive Details:Issue 1: Eligibility for Cenvat CreditThe appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal confirming disallowance of Cenvat Credit on input services used before registration. The appellant availed credit of input services from April to October 2012 for providing output services in November 2012. The show cause notice was issued for disallowance of credit, which was affirmed in the Order-in-Original. The appellant contended that Rule 2(l) and 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules do not restrict availing credit on input services used before output services. The Revenue argued that services used before registration do not qualify as 'input service' under Rule 2(l).Issue 2: Interpretation of Input ServiceThe Tribunal found that the services used by the appellant fall within the definition of 'input service.' The dispute centered on taking input services before providing output services and registration. The Tribunal noted that there is no time limit prescribed for utilizing input services and no requirement for one-to-one correlation between availing input services and providing output services. The Tribunal agreed that the period before providing output services involved essential expenditure used for output services.Issue 3: Precedents and Legal InterpretationThe Tribunal cited precedents like Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. and Imagination Technologies India P. Ltd. to support the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit on input services used before registration. The Tribunal also referenced Mafatlal Industries Ltd., highlighting that denial of credit for ISD invoices issued before registration is not supported by law. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to claim Cenvat Credit, setting aside the demand and penalties. The Tribunal criticized the Appellate Authority for passing the impugned order without proper consideration, setting it aside and allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the Cenvat Credit claim and setting aside the impugned order due to lack of proper application of mind.