Input service CENVAT credit and limitation: business nexus and disclosed returns defeated demand, interest, and penalty.

CENVAT credit was found admissible on erection and commissioning, management consultant, manpower supply, and employee insurance services because they had a business nexus and fell within the inclusive scope of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The extended period of limitation was not available because the assessee had disclosed the credit in returns and the department already had audit knowledge, so no specific suppression was shown. Interest and penalty also failed as they were consequential to the unsustainable demand and no deliberate contravention was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether CENVAT credit on erection and commissioning services, management consultant services, manpower supply services, and mediclaim or accidental insurance policy for employees was admissible; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked; and (iii) whether interest and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether CENVAT credit on erection and commissioning services, management consultant services, manpower supply services, and mediclaim or accidental insurance policy for employees was admissible.

Analysis: The services were examined in the context of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute concerned whether the impugned services had the required nexus with the assessee's business and whether they fell within the inclusive ambit of input service. The record showed that the services were claimed to have been used in the assessee's business operations, including output service activity, business planning, manpower deployment, and employee welfare. The credit denial was therefore unsustainable on the facts presented.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the impugned services was held admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The notice proceeded on allegations of suppression and wilful contravention, but no specific factual basis was shown to establish deliberate suppression. The credit availment had been disclosed in periodic returns and was already within the Department's knowledge through the audit note prior to issuance of the show cause notice. In such circumstances, the demand could not be sustained by invoking the extended period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was held unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether interest and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Interest and penalty were consequential to the disputed demand. Once the demand itself failed on merits and on limitation, the foundation for interest and penalty also disappeared. No deliberate defiance of law was established.

Conclusion: Interest and penalty were held unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief under the applicable law.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the impugned services qualify as input services in relation to business, and the extended period of limitation is unavailable in the absence of specific suppression supported by facts already within departmental knowledge.

---