Manufacturer can claim CENVAT credit for manpower and housekeeping services at unregistered job working units, input service definition construed widely

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal challenging denial of CENVAT credit on manpower supply and housekeeping services received at unregistered job working units. The tribunal held that input service definition should be construed widely, and credit can be availed for services received by manufacturers regardless of location, following HC precedent. Regarding time-barred credit claims, the tribunal ruled that invoices issued before September 2014 were not subject to six-month limitation introduced later, as retrospective application was not intended. Extended period invocation was rejected as issues were interpretational and debatable, with no evidence of suppression. Orders set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Credit availed on manpower supply services and housekeeping services at unregistered premises.
2. Availment of Cenvat Credit beyond the prescribed time limit of 6 months/1 year.
3. Invocation of extended period of demand.
4. Demand of interest and imposition of penalties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Credit availed on manpower supply services and housekeeping services at unregistered premises:

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing ICP Engines and motor vehicle parts, availed Cenvat Credit on services such as manpower supply and housekeeping at unregistered premises. The department argued that these services were not used in the registered factory premises, thus violating Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that the unregistered premises were job-working units and integral to their manufacturing process. The Tribunal held that Cenvat Credit Rules do not mandate that credit can only be availed after registering the premises. Citing various case laws, it was concluded that input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products are eligible for credit, even if availed at unregistered premises. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of credit on these grounds.

2. Availment of Cenvat Credit beyond the prescribed time limit of 6 months/1 year:

The appellant availed credit on invoices issued prior to the amendment in Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which introduced a time limit for availing credit. The department disallowed the credit, arguing that the invoices were beyond the 6 months/1 year limit. The Tribunal, referencing the Delhi High Court's decision in Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the credit availed on invoices issued before the introduction of the time limit was deemed eligible. The Tribunal set aside the demand raised on this ground.

3. Invocation of extended period of demand:

The department invoked the extended period of demand, alleging suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal found no evidence of any positive act of suppression or malafide intention by the appellant. The issues were deemed interpretational, with litigation extending to higher courts, indicating their debatable nature. Consequently, the invocation of the extended period was not justified, and the issue was resolved in favor of the appellant.

4. Demand of interest and imposition of penalties:

Given that the primary demands were set aside, the Tribunal found no basis for the demand of interest or the imposition of penalties. The absence of any malafide intention further negated the justification for penalties under Section 11AC of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal ordered the vacation of the protest and consequential reliefs to the appellant.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and providing consequential reliefs to the appellant. The judgment emphasized that input services used in the manufacturing process, even if availed at unregistered premises, are eligible for Cenvat Credit and that amendments introducing time limits for availing credit cannot be applied retrospectively.

---