2025 (1) TMI 71 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit eligibility cannot be questioned at refund stage without Show Cause Notice under Rule 14

Commissioner, Service Tax, Noida Versus M/s HCL Technologies Ltd.

CESTAT Allahabad held that eligibility of CENVAT credit cannot be questioned at refund stage without issuing Show Cause Notice under Rule 14 of CENVAT ... Eligibility of cenvat credit can be questioned at the stage of refund without issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? - CENVAT Credit - input services - jurisdiction to deny CENVAT credit at the refund stage without prior proceedings under Rule 14. HELD THAT:- In the absence of any proceedings under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2014 observations recorded by the Assistant Commissioner are only in the nature of observations and cannot be taken as denial of CENVAT Credit. Even the Assistant Commissioner has nowhere said so. The Tribunal in the case of MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND MICROSOFT INDIA (R & D) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD-IV [2020 (10) TMI 57 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] held 'In the present case, it is an undisputed fact on record that the department had not proceeded against the appellant for effecting recovery of the allegedly availed irregular Cenvat credit, by taking recourse to Rule 14 ibid read with Section 73 ibid. On the other hand, the department had raised the issue of non-establishment of nexus between the input services and exported output service for the first time, while adjudicating the subject refund claims filed under Rule 5 ibid by the appellant.' Further the Respondent-Assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) not against the order of the Assistant Commissioner but against the observations made in discussion and findings of the Order. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) multiplied these findings without any change in the order portion which in any case was in accordance with the claim filed by the Respondent-Assessee. Conclusion - The department had not proceeded against the appellant for effecting recovery of the allegedly availed irregular Cenvat credit, by taking recourse to Rule 14 ibid read with Section 73 ibid. Appeal of Revenue dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the eligibility of CENVAT credit can be questioned at the stage of refund without issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Whether the input services availed by the Respondent-Assessee qualify as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Whether the Department has the jurisdiction to deny CENVAT credit at the refund stage without prior proceedings under Rule 14.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Eligibility of CENVAT credit questioned at the refund stage without SCNRelevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 mandates recovery of wrongly availed credit through SCN. The Finance Act, 1994, Section 73, prescribes the procedure for such recovery.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that the Department did not issue an SCN under Rule 14, which is a prerequisite for questioning CENVAT credit eligibility. The Tribunal in Microsoft Global Services Center case was referenced, emphasizing the need for SCN prior to recovery proceedings.Key evidence and findings: The Department's failure to issue an SCN was pivotal, rendering their observations in the Order-In-Original as mere observations without legal standing.Application of law to facts: Without an SCN, the Department's challenge to the CENVAT credit was deemed procedurally improper.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent-Assessee argued the lack of jurisdiction without an SCN, which the court upheld, dismissing the Department's appeal.Conclusions: The court concluded that eligibility of CENVAT credit cannot be questioned at the refund stage without an SCN.Issue 2: Qualification of input services under Rule 2(l)Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 defines 'input services'. Various precedents, including Goodyear India Ltd. and EXFO Electro Optical Engineering, were considered.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court analyzed each disputed service, determining their nexus to the output services provided by the Respondent-Assessee. The inclusive nature of the definition was emphasized.Key evidence and findings: Services like car parking, event management, and courier services were found to have a direct nexus with business operations, thus qualifying as input services.Application of law to facts: The court applied the inclusive definition of 'input services' to each service, finding them eligible for CENVAT credit.Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's argument of non-qualification was countered with precedents supporting the Respondent-Assessee's position.Conclusions: The court upheld that the disputed services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l).3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The department had not proceeded against the appellant for effecting recovery of the allegedly availed irregular Cenvat credit, by taking recourse to Rule 14 ibid read with Section 73 ibid.'Core principles established: The necessity of issuing an SCN before challenging CENVAT credit eligibility and the broad interpretation of 'input services' under Rule 2(l).Final determinations on each issue: The appeal by the Department was dismissed, affirming the eligibility of CENVAT credit for the Respondent-Assessee and the procedural impropriety of the Department's actions without an SCN.