2014 (11) TMI 1091 - AT - Service Tax

Invokation of extended period of limitation - Cenvat credit - transportation & distribution of food material supply of tea & snacks manpower services (doctor pharmacist & nurses) caretaking jobs at auditorium etc. - inclusion of cost of subsidy towards subsidized food as also several other fringe benefits in the cost of production - Held that - in respect of several of the services there are already decisions taking a view that the CENVAT credit is admissible and we find the decisions relied upon by the appellants are appropriate and applicable to the facts of this case. Further we also take note of the fact that appellants themselves have admitted that certain portion of the credit are not admissible after the amendment of provisions in the CCR and in our opinion the appellants should deposit the interest on this amount paid by them for hearing the appeal. Accordingly the appellants are directed to pay interest amount within eight weeks and report compliance. - Stay granted

Summary

Issues:
CENVAT credit disallowed under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Definition of 'input service' - Suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty - Longer period of limitation invocable.

Analysis:

1. CENVAT Credit Disallowed:
The Tribunal noted that a substantial amount of CENVAT credit was disallowed under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, along with the imposition of demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Department argued that certain services like transportation, distribution of food material, supply of tea and snacks, and other activities were not integrally connected with the business of the applicants and hence did not qualify as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the CCR. It was alleged that the appellants suppressed facts to evade duty payment, justifying the invocation of a longer period of limitation.

2. Appellants' Submissions:
The appellants contended that all services, including transportation, supply of food, manpower services, gardening, maintenance, and others, were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products as they were received and utilized within the factory premises. They argued that these services were essential for their business activities and fell under the definition of 'input services' during the disputed period. Additionally, they highlighted that services like outdoor catering, medical facilities, gardening, and maintenance were provided as per statutory requirements under the Factories Act, 1948, and Workmen's Compensation Act, making them eligible input services.

3. Tribunal's Decision:
After evaluating the arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that previous decisions supported the admissibility of CENVAT credit for several services. They acknowledged that the appellants had admitted certain credits were not admissible post-amendment in the CCR. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to pay interest on the non-admissible amount within a specified timeline. Upon compliance with this requirement, the pre-deposit of the remaining dues was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the conditions laid out in the order.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal provisions involved in the case.