2025 (6) TMI 440 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit allowed on input services except where documentary proof missing, excess credit disallowed

Canara Bank Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Karnataka

CESTAT Bangalore partially allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit eligibility. Following tribunal directions from previous litigation, the ... Eligibility for various input services as claimed by the appellant - scope of SCN - appellant submitted that the impugned order is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice since there was no allegation in the show-cause notice that they were ineligible input service - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal SYNDICATE BANK [2009 (12) TMI 185 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] in the first round of litigation observed 'we find that the entire demand of Rs.2,92,47,275/ has arisen only on the ground that the appellant was not able to give break up of the head 'other charges'. We find that the adjudicating authority has come to such a conclusion for denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the appellant has not produced any breakup and detailed explanation. The adjudicating authority should have considered the issue after going through the evidence placed before him and the submissions made before him by the appellant which is marshalled before us now. In view of this, we set as de the impugned order to the extent it confirms the reversal of Cenvat credit of Rs. 2.92 crores and allow the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after appreciating the evidence placed before him during the denovo proceedings.' Hence, the impugned order following the directions of the Tribunal and after verification of eligibility and various documents disallowed cenvat credit to the extent of Rs.97,24,249/-. Appellant had also furnished copies of sample documents which contained the service tax component; however, denied the benefit of cenvat credit on AMC, Rent, Architect Fee, Professional Fees, Car Repairs on the ground that the service provider failed to furnish copies of sampled documents containing the service tax element. The cenvat credit on Security, Audit Fee, E-filing, Insurance has been denied on the ground that they are not eligible inputs. Conclusion - i) CENVAT credit is allowed on all input services except those where documentary proof was not furnished. ii) Credit disallowed on grounds of ineligibility without nexus was reversed based on precedents confirming nexus. iii) Excess credit availed is disallowed. The appeal is partially allowed. The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:1. Whether the appellant bank was eligible to claim CENVAT credit on various input services utilized in the course of providing output services.2. Whether the impugned order denying CENVAT credit on certain input services was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and the directions of the Tribunal.3. Whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proof by furnishing adequate documentary evidence, including audited certificates and sample documents evidencing payment of service tax.4. Whether penalties imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 were justified in view of the findings on eligibility and documentary compliance.5. Whether the nexus or integral connection test between input services and output services, as expounded in relevant precedents, was appropriately applied by the adjudicating authority.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Input ServicesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 govern the eligibility of input services for credit. The definition of 'input service' is exhaustive and requires a nexus or integral connection with the output services provided. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka's observations in Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. and Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. emphasize that input services must have a nexus with the business activity or manufacture of final products to qualify for credit.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal in the appellant's earlier case had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after finding that the denial of credit was primarily due to the appellant's failure to provide a breakup of 'other charges.' The present impugned order disallowed credit on several input services, classifying some as ineligible inputs and others due to lack of documentary evidence.The Court examined the nexus test as reiterated in the Tribunal's 2020 order, highlighting that input services utilized in the appellant's banking and financial services business inherently possess the required nexus. The Court noted that the denial of credit on the ground of ineligibility was not sustainable where the appellant had demonstrated the integral connection of these services with their output services.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant furnished audited certificates and service tax paid statements from various regional offices, which were accepted by the Commissioner. Sample documents evidencing service tax payment were also produced for some services.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the nexus test and found that the input services such as security, audit fees, insurance, architect fees, professional fees, and others were integral to the appellant's business operations and hence eligible for credit. This was consistent with the precedents cited.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the credit was irregular and the impugned order was within the scope of remand. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the nexus was absent, relying on the appellant's documentary evidence and legal precedents supporting the eligibility of these services.Conclusion: CENVAT credit on all input services except those specifically rejected due to lack of documentary evidence was allowed.2. Scope of Show-Cause Notice and Tribunal's DirectionsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle that adjudication must remain within the scope of the show-cause notice is well-established. The Tribunal's earlier order had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication specifically to verify the documentary evidence and eligibility.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant contended that the impugned order went beyond the scope of the show-cause notice by denying credit on grounds not alleged therein. The Revenue countered that the remand empowered the Commissioner to examine eligibility afresh.The Court observed that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the Tribunal's directions and involved verification of eligibility and documentary evidence. It held that the Commissioner's denial of credit on grounds of ineligibility was not beyond the scope of the remand.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal's remand order explicitly directed fresh adjudication after appreciating evidence. The Commissioner's order was consistent with this mandate.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the adjudication did not exceed the scope of the show-cause notice or remand, as the issue of eligibility was integral to the determination of credit admissibility.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument was rejected on the basis that the remand broadened the scope for fresh examination.Conclusion: The impugned order was within the scope of the show-cause notice and Tribunal's directions.3. Documentary Evidence and Burden of ProofRelevant Legal Framework: Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules requires proper documentation to claim credit. The burden lies on the appellant to prove payment of service tax and eligibility of input services.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the appellant had produced audited certificates and sample documents for many input services, which were accepted by the Commissioner. However, credit was denied for certain expenditure heads (AMC at Head Office, Car Repair, Other Charges at Regional Offices, Others at 12 ROs) due to failure to furnish sample documents evidencing service tax payment.Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of documentary evidence for these specific heads was undisputed. The Commissioner's denial was on sound grounds of non-production of evidence.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that absence of documentary proof disentitles the appellant from claiming credit.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant did not contest the lack of documents for these heads. The Court upheld the denial accordingly.Conclusion: Credit was disallowed for input services where requisite documentary evidence was not furnished.4. Excess Credit AvailedRelevant Legal Framework: Any excess credit availed beyond entitlement must be reversed and is liable for penalty under the Finance Act.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The impugned order found that the appellant had availed excess credit of Rs.9,83,864/-, which was admitted and appropriated. The Court upheld this disallowance.Key Evidence and Findings: The excess credit was undisputed and admitted by the appellant.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle of reversal of excess credit.Conclusion: Excess credit availed was rightly disallowed.5. Penalties under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994The order imposed penalties for irregular availing of credit. However, the present appeal primarily concerned eligibility and documentary compliance. The Court did not specifically reverse or uphold penalties but the partial allowance of credit would impact penalty applicability.Significant Holdings'The real test is, whether there is a nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product.''We find that the input services claimed by the appellants are admissible for credit for rendering output services.''The impugned order travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice where the denial was based on co-relation between input service and output service, whereas the show cause notice was for contravention of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules.''The cenvat credit stands allowed for all services except those for which sample documents were not provided and excess credit availed.'Core principles established include the necessity of nexus between input and output services for credit eligibility, the requirement of documentary proof for availing credit, and adherence to procedural limits defined by show-cause notices and Tribunal directions.Final determinations:CENVAT credit is allowed on all input services except those where documentary proof was not furnished.Credit disallowed on grounds of ineligibility without nexus was reversed based on precedents confirming nexus.Excess credit availed is disallowed.The impugned order is within the scope of the show-cause notice and Tribunal's remand.