2025 (12) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows CENVAT credit on lease premium, ISD-marketing, meetings, repainting; extended limitation and penalties held unsustainable under Rule 2(l)

M/s. Zuari Cement Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Kerala

CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for recovery of alleged ineligible CENVAT credit and penalties. It held that credit on lease ... Recovery of ineligible CENVAT credit availed by the Appellant - lease premium - Appellant has not paid central excise duty correctly for the MRP based clearances and also availed ineligible CENVAT Credit of input services - ISD invoices issued in respect of services availed by the Regional marketing office - expenditure incurred for business meeting - services received in the form of repainting work - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Penalty. Credit availed on lease premium - HELD THAT:- As held by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Shell India Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (11) TMI 1127 - CESTAT BANGALORE], since the disputed services were ultimately meant for accomplishing the objective of providing the output service, it cannot be said that since the phrase ‘setting up’ was specifically excluded in the inclusive part of definition of input service, the benefit of CENVAT credit should be denied. As regards demand against ineligible CENVAT credit of Rs. 36,97,114/-, it is found that without the very same services, Appellant cannot undertake the manufacturing process and therefore the services availed by the Appellant have direct nexus with the manufacturing activities undertaken by the Appellant. Credit availed on the ISD invoices issued in respect of services availed by the Regional marketing office viz., Hyderabad, Bangalore and Chennai - HELD THAT:- It is found that the payment of service tax and the credit was taken by ISD office at Bangalore and thereafter said ISD office who, undisputedly, has borne the incidence of tax has distributed CENVAT Credit to the Appellant. Thus, the CENVAT credit pertains to the service tax paid by the marketing office of the Appellant in respect of input services used for marketing of final product and it is in relation to manufacture of final product, and the very same issue is covered by the decision in the matter of M/s. Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.CEx., Mumbai [2019 (9) TMI 1532 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. CENVAT credit in respect of the expenditure incurred for business meeting - HELD THAT:- Appellant has availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 90,716/- in respect of Service Tax paid on the invoice issued by M/s. Bigtree Advertising and Media Communications Pvt. Ltd., towards expenditure that has been incurred for conducting business meeting at the Appellant's plant in Cochin. As held in the matter of M/s. Arris Group India Private Limited (supra), we hold that appellant is eligible to avail the credit of service tax paid on the event management services utilized for organizing various events for prospective clients/employees. Denial of credit of Rs. 1,34,123/- in respect of services received in the form of repainting work - HELD THAT:- CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 exclude only a specific type of works contract which is in the nature of works contract/construction of civil structure building as well as construction of support structure for capital goods. However, the activities undertaken by the Appellant is works service contract and not for construction of building or civil structure for denial of CENVAT credit. Invocation of extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the audit was conducted from July 2102 to September 2014 and when such allegations were not made, demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation and penalty are unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether service tax paid on lease premium for land taken for setting up a cement packing plant qualifies as 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 post 01.04.2011. 1.2 Whether input services used prior to commencement of commercial production (including services relating to taking land on lease, procurement of machinery and setting up of plant) are eligible for CENVAT credit. 1.3 Whether CENVAT credit distributed by an Input Service Distributor (ISD) to the manufacturing unit can be denied and recovered at the recipient unit, and whether the marketing-related services in question qualify as input services. 1.4 Whether event management services used for business meetings and promotional events qualify as input services after the 2011 amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 1.5 Whether repainting work services fall within the exclusion relating to construction/works contract under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 1.6 Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty were justified in the facts of the case. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Eligibility of CENVAT credit on lease premium for land used for setting up cement packing plant Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The Tribunal examined Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, particularly the scope of the 'means' part ('in or in relation to manufacture... whether directly or indirectly') and the effect of the 01.04.2011 amendment which deleted 'setting up' from the inclusive part but did not alter the main/'means' clause. 2.2 The Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision in M/s Shell India Pvt. Ltd., as affirmed by the High Court and with SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that deletion of 'setting up' from the inclusive part does not exclude services used for setting up from the main part of the definition if they are used in or in relation to manufacture/output service and are not specifically excluded. Interpretation and reasoning 2.3 The Tribunal held that services used for obtaining land on lease for setting up a factory are directly in relation to manufacture because, without such land, no factory can be set up and no manufacture can take place. 2.4 It reiterated that, post-2011, services that are used directly or indirectly 'in or in relation to manufacture' continue to be covered by the main part of Rule 2(l), unless specifically excluded, and that the removal of 'setting up' from the inclusive part does not affect this position. 2.5 Following Shell India and other Tribunal precedents (including Kellogs India, Pepsico India Holdings, and Sri Chamundeshwari Sugars) on similar facts, the Tribunal found that lease premium for land taken for setting up the factory is an eligible input service. Conclusions 2.6 The Tribunal concluded that lease premium for land used for setting up the cement packing plant qualifies as 'input service' under Rule 2(l) and that CENVAT credit on the corresponding service tax is admissible. The demand on this ground is unsustainable. Issue 2: Eligibility of CENVAT credit on services used prior to commencement of commercial production (Rs. 36,97,114) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.7 The Tribunal considered Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the judicial view that services having nexus with future manufacturing activity qualify as input services even if used prior to commencement of commercial production. Interpretation and reasoning 2.8 The services in question related to: (i) taking land on lease, (ii) procurement of machinery, and (iii) setting up of plant, all prior to commencement of manufacture. 2.9 The Tribunal accepted that, without these very services, the appellant could not undertake the manufacturing process and that they therefore have a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. 2.10 It followed the reasoning in cited precedents (including decisions such as Tata Motors Ltd. and Shree Cement Ltd.) that there is no bar on availing CENVAT credit on input services received prior to commencement of commercial production, so long as there is a clear nexus with the intended manufacture. Conclusions 2.11 The Tribunal held that the services received prior to commencement of production, being indispensable and directly related to the forthcoming manufacturing operations, qualify as input services. The disallowance of CENVAT credit of Rs. 36,97,114/- on this ground is not sustainable. Issue 3: CENVAT credit distributed by ISD and its denial/recovery at recipient unit (Rs. 1,21,727) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.12 The Tribunal considered the scheme of CENVAT credit for Input Service Distributor under Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the principle that a recipient unit merely utilizes credit distributed by ISD, whereas the availment and incidence of tax are at the ISD level. 2.13 The Tribunal relied on the decision in M/s Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd., which held that the assessee-recipient is not required, under the framework of Rules, to verify the eligibility or source of credit distributed by the ISD and that any dispute on admissibility must be addressed at the ISD level. Interpretation and reasoning 2.14 The services in question were marketing-related services availed by regional marketing offices (Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai) for marketing of final products, on which service tax was paid and credit taken by the ISD at Bangalore, which then distributed the credit to the appellant. 2.15 The Tribunal found that: (i) the ISD had undisputedly borne the incidence of tax; (ii) the services were used for marketing of the final product, which is an activity in relation to manufacture; and (iii) under the CENVAT scheme, wrongful availment, if any, must be examined at the ISD level, not at the recipient unit which merely utilizes distributed credit. Conclusions 2.16 The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,21,727/- distributed by the ISD could not be denied or recovered from the recipient unit and that the marketing services qualify as input services. The demand on this count is unsustainable. Issue 4: Eligibility of CENVAT credit on event management / business meeting services (Rs. 90,716) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.17 The Tribunal again applied Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 post-2011 and examined whether event management services used for business meetings and promotional events are 'in relation to' manufacture or provision of output activity. 2.18 The Tribunal relied on decisions such as Arris Group India Pvt. Ltd. and Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., which recognized event management services used for client/employee events and inaugural/promotional functions as eligible input services where they are linked to business, advertisement or promotion. Interpretation and reasoning 2.19 The disputed amount of Rs. 90,716/- related to service tax paid on event management services provided by M/s Bigtree Advertising and Media Communications Pvt. Ltd. for business meetings held at the appellant's plant and for events aimed at marketing and promoting the appellant's cement products. 2.20 The Tribunal found these services to be inextricably linked and having direct nexus with the manufacturing and sale/marketing of the appellant's products, thus falling within the ambit of input service. Conclusions 2.21 The Tribunal held that event management and business meeting services used for marketing, promotion and business discussions constitute input services and that CENVAT credit of Rs. 90,716/- is admissible. The denial of credit on the ground of 'function/entertainment charges' is unsustainable. Issue 5: CENVAT credit on repainting work vis-à-vis works contract/construction exclusion (Rs. 1,34,123) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.22 The Tribunal considered the exclusion in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for services in the nature of works contract or construction of building or civil structure, or construction of structure for support of capital goods. Interpretation and reasoning 2.23 The services under dispute were repainting work services. The Department treated them as works contract/construction services falling within the exclusion. 2.24 The Tribunal held that the exclusion under Rule 2(l) is confined to specific types of works contract or construction activities, namely construction of building or civil structure and construction of support structures for capital goods. 2.25 The Tribunal found that the repainting work in question was a works service contract but did not amount to construction of a new building or civil structure, nor construction of support structures for capital goods, and hence does not fall within the excluded category. Conclusions 2.26 The Tribunal concluded that repainting services are not covered by the works contract/construction exclusion and therefore qualify as input services. Disallowance of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,34,123/- on this basis is untenable. Issue 6: Validity of invoking extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty Legal framework (as discussed) 2.27 The Tribunal considered the conditions for invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, namely the presence of suppression of facts, willful misstatement or intent to evade duty. Interpretation and reasoning 2.28 It was noted that a departmental audit had been conducted at the corporate office for an earlier period (July 2012 to September 2014), resulting in an Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2016 with penalty, but no objection was then raised on the type of ineligible CENVAT credits now alleged. 2.29 The Tribunal observed that the current allegations are based entirely on documents maintained by the appellant and that the department was already in a position to examine these issues during the earlier audit. 2.30 In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that there was no basis to allege suppression or mala fide intent, and hence no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Conclusions 2.31 The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period of limitation and consequent penalties are unsustainable. The entire demand raised by invoking the extended period, along with penalties, is liable to be set aside. Overall disposition 2.32 On cumulatively accepting the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on all disputed heads and holding that extended limitation and penalties were wrongly invoked, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order in toto and allowed the appeal with consequential relief in accordance with law.