2025 (2) TMI 588 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit denied for LED TV manufacturer claiming advertisement services for air conditioners from different unit

M/s. LEEL ELECTRICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, Alwar (Rajasthan)

M/s. LEEL ELECTRICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, Alwar (Rajasthan) - TMI The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the appellant wrongly availed CENVAT Credit on ineligible input services during a specific period.2. Whether the CENVAT Credit on advertisement services, tour operator services used for consignment agents, and installation/dismantling of machinery at a specific unit of the appellant is admissible.3. Whether the appellant is entitled to challenge the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty for wrongly availing in-eligible input services.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1:The appellant was found to have wrongly availed CENVAT Credit on ineligible input services during a specific period, leading to a demand for repayment along with penalties. The appellant challenged this order on the grounds that interest should not be recoverable as their closing balance was never less than the amount of CENVAT Credit in question.Issue 2:The main issue for consideration was the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on advertisement services, tour operator services for consignment agents, and installation/dismantling of machinery at a specific unit of the appellant. The appellant argued that these services were eligible for credit as they were related to sales promotion and other business activities. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant failed to establish a direct correlation between these services and the manufacture, clearance, and sale of their final products.The Adjudicating Authority referred to legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the need for an integral connection between the services and the business of manufacturing final products to qualify for CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the appellant was not entitled to the CENVAT Credit on the mentioned services.Issue 3:The appellant also challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties for wrongly availing in-eligible input services. The appellant argued that they had already reversed the credit before the issuance of the show cause notice. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant had wrongly availed and utilized the credit on ineligible input services, contravening the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the imposition of penalties and the recovery of the wrongly availed credit.Significant holdings:The Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's decision regarding the in-admissibility of CENVAT Credit on certain services due to the lack of a direct correlation with the appellant's manufacturing activities. The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of penalties and the recovery of wrongly availed credits, emphasizing the appellant's failure to comply with the CENVAT Credit Rules.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned order, holding the appellant liable for the repayment of wrongly availed credits and penalties.[Order pronounced on 14th February, 2025]