2018 (9) TMI 1148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their two manufacturing units located at Mattampally and Pedavedu villages, which manufacture cement chargeable to Central Excise duty. On verification of the records, it was found that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit during the period April, 2014 to March, 2015 amounting to Rs. 6,43,593/- on certain legal services which they received. On examination of the nature of such legal services it was found that they had no relationship to the manufacture of cement by the plants but they were related to sale of investments by them in another company. It was felt by the lower authority that credit of service tax on such legal services is not covered by Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore, a show cause notice was issued se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. In this case, the legal services which have been availed by them have no relationship whatsoever directly or indirectly to the manufacture of cement by the cement plant by the appellant therefore, they are not entitled to the credit. These services were rendered only for the acquisition of cement plant which has no nexus whatsoever with the manufacture of the cements by the appellant. He, further, asserts that nexus with the manufacture is an essential ingredients under Rule 2(l) and this Rule does not entitle them to avail CENVAT credit in respect of any services whatsoever whether or not it is related to manufacture. 5. I have examined the arguments on both sides, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... one or more of the specified services; or 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on legal services. The Learned Advocate for the appellant also does not dispute that there is no nexus of these services with the manufacture of the final products. He asserts that what was included in the inclusive part of the above definition of input services need not be related to manufacturer whether directly or indirectly. He further asserts that the legal services are not in the excluded part of the definition and hence they entitled to the service credit. He relied on the following case laws: Hindustan Petroleum Vs. CCE, Vizag [2016-TIOL-3130-CESTATHYD]. HCL Coment Systems and Services Ltd., Vs. CCE, Noida [201....