CENVAT credit allowed on bank guarantee charges and sales commission for turbo generator manufacturing activities

CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal challenging denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for bank guarantee charges and sales commission to agents. The tribunal held that bank guarantee charges under Banking and Financial Services and sales commission under Business Auxiliary Services, used in connection with supply and installation of turbo generator sets, qualify for CENVAT credit. Following established precedents, the tribunal found that sales commission has direct nexus with manufacturing activity as it promotes sales which drives production. The denial of CENVAT credit was deemed unsustainable in law, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

1. Whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Bank Guarantee charges under 'Banking and other Financial Services' is admissible when such services are used in connection with the supply, commissioning, and installation of Turbo Generator (TG) sets.

2. Whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Sales Commission to agents under 'Business Auxiliary Services' for procuring work orders related to TG sets is admissible.

3. Whether the installation and commissioning activity of the Turbo Generator sets at the customer's site, which may be considered as immovable goods, affects the eligibility of CENVAT credit on related input services.

4. Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked for denial of CENVAT credit for the period from September 2006 to August 2010, especially in the absence of any suppression or intent to evade duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Bank Guarantee Charges

The legal framework revolves around the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, especially Rule 2(l) which defines 'input service' to include activities relating to business such as financing. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit on service tax paid on Bank Guarantee charges, arguing that these charges are integral to the composite contract for manufacture and installation of Turbo Generator sets.

The Tribunal examined the contractual terms, which explicitly required execution of Bank Guarantees as part of the contract. The Bank Guarantee was thus directly linked to the supply and installation activities, which are integral to the manufacturing process.

Precedents relied upon include the Tribunal's decision in M/s RMS Infotech Pvt Ltd Vs. CC, Bangalore, which held that "activities relating to business" qualify as input services and denial of CENVAT credit on such input services prior to 1-4-2011 cannot be sustained if the services were availed for business purposes.

The department contended that the installation activity resulted in immovable goods, thereby severing the nexus with manufacture and disqualifying the services as input services. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that immovability is not a criterion for eligibility of credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules.

The Tribunal applied the law to facts by recognizing that Bank Guarantee services were availed in the course of business and were essential for execution of the contract, thereby satisfying the nexus requirement. The department's contention of no nexus was found to be unsubstantiated.

2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Sales Commission to Agents

The appellant paid sales commission to agents for procuring orders for Turbo Generator sets and claimed CENVAT credit on service tax paid under 'Business Auxiliary Services'. The department denied credit on the ground that these services do not relate to manufacture and are not input services.

The Tribunal referred to Explanation-II inserted in Rule 2(l) by Notification No. 02/2016-CE dated 03.02.2016, which clarified that sales promotion includes services by way of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. This amendment was held to be declaratory and retrospective.

Several precedents were cited supporting the claim, including decisions in Essar Steels India Ltd., Stanley Seating, Simboli Sugar Ltd., Beloorbayir Biotech Limited, and Federal Mogul Goetze TPR Ltd., all affirming that sales commission paid to agents for sales promotion qualifies as input service eligible for CENVAT credit.

The Tribunal further underscored that sales commission has a direct nexus with sales, which in turn is related to manufacture. It reasoned that "Any activity which amounts to sale of the products is deemed to be sales promotion activity," and that promoting sales is integral to boosting manufacturing activity.

The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that immovability of the installed goods affects credit eligibility, relying on judicial precedents that immovability does not disqualify input services from credit.

3. Effect of Immovability of Installed Goods on CENVAT Credit Eligibility

The department argued that installation of Turbo Generator sets at the customer's site results in immovable goods, and hence the services used in installation do not relate to manufacture and are not eligible for credit.

The Tribunal clarified that immovability alone is not a criterion to deny CENVAT credit under the Rules. It relied on decisions such as Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore vs. Bannari Amman Sugars Limited, and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ICL Sugar Limited, which held that services related to manufacture or business are eligible for credit regardless of whether the final product is movable or immovable.

The Tribunal concluded that the installation and commissioning activity is an integral part of the manufacturing process and the input services used therein qualify for credit.

4. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation for Denial of Credit

The department invoked the extended period of limitation for the period September 2006 to August 2010, alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

The appellant contended that the credit was availed based on valid invoices and disclosed in statutory returns (ER-1) filed regularly, negating any suppression or intent to evade duty.

The Tribunal relied on the decision in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd Vs. CST, New Delhi, which held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression or fraud.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued for the extended period was barred by limitation and unsustainable.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal held that denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on Bank Guarantee commission and Sales Commission is not sustainable in law. Key legal reasoning includes:

"With regard to the availment of Cenvat credit on the input services prior to the period 1-4-2011, the definition of 'Input Service' contained in Rule 2(l) ibid provided that 'activities relating to business' should be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of the benefit of Cenvat facility. In this case, the Department has not raised any objection that the appellants had availed the input services for accomplishing their business purpose. Hence, under such circumstances, denial of Cenvat benefit on the input services availed by the appellant prior to the period 1-4-2011 cannot be denied solely on the ground that the disputed services are not categorised as input services."

On sales commission, the Tribunal stated:

"Any activity which amounts to sale of the products is deemed to be sales promotion activity in the normal trade parlance. The commission is paid on sales of the products/services with an intention to boost the sale of the company. In view of the same, the sales commission has a direct nexus with the sales which in turn is related to the manufacture of the products. It is to be understood that there need not be manufacture unless there is sale of product. To increase the manufacturing activity encouragement is being given for increased sales. Hence, the commission paid on sales becomes part of sales promotion resulting in increased manufacturing activity."

Further, the Tribunal affirmed the retrospective applicability of the Explanation inserted in Rule 2(l) by Notification No. 02/2016-CE, thereby validating credit on sales commission paid before the amendment.

Regarding limitation, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any suppression or intent to evade duty, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying CENVAT credit on Bank Guarantee charges and Sales Commission, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---