TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s definitely a service in relation to the manufacture of tyres. Also the Cenvat Credit of input services used for storage upto the place of removal and for procurement of inputs are admissible for Cenvat Credit - There is no apparent role of any subsidiary or associated company of the appellant nor there is anything on record which may prove the availment of the impugned service by the said subsidiary/associated companies of the appellants as well - the issue stands decided in favour of the appellant. Requirement of mandatory permission from Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- Rule 8 makes it abundantly clear that scope of this rule is for reversal of credit of Cenvatable inputs. It is also clear that the permission is required only in cae of the storage of excisable raw-material. It is not the fact for the present appeal. Appellant has submitted that the input stored in the premises was non-excisable. There is no denial by the Department nor there is allegation in the Show Cause Notice about the inputs to be excisable - Rule 8 has wrongly been invoked by the Department while denying the admissibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was alleged that the services in question do not fall within the purview of definition of input services and, therefore, the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax taken on the basis of the aforesaid invoices was proposed to be denied as being not admissible. Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 17,02,715/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellants alongwith the interest and the proportionate penalties. The said proposal was confirmed initially vide the Order-in-Original No. 72/CE/2017-18 dated 28 March, 2018. The appeal thereof was dismissed vide the order under challenge dated 14.05.2019. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Shaswat Arya, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri P.Juneja, ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellants had imported various non-excisable inputs that were required for the manufacture of tyres. However, the storage space being insufficient in the appellants premises, the appellant required an additional godown for storage of its non-excisable inputs and accordingly entered into a lease agreement dated 29.08.2019 with M/s. Grover Stainless Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y mentioned that lessee shall utilise the demised premises for business purpose only which would deem to mean and include use an occupation of the demised premises by its subsidiary companies or associated companies . It is impressed upon that in view of the said clause in the lease agreement there arises no reason with the appellant to deny the usage of rented/leased premises by appellant s own subsidiary and associated companies also. Learned D.R. has also laid emphasis upon the VAT Registration Certificate which has been issued in favour of four Balkrishna Industries Ltd. existing at four different areas, however, all being in vicinity of the impugned leased premises. It becomes clear that clause 5 (b) is incorporated in the lease with the sole intention for those premises to be used by the subsidiary companies of the appellant existing in the vicinity. The demands therefore have rightly been confirmed. Otherwise also the appellant has not produced any document to show the exclusive use of the rented premises by them. However, as far as the evidence to be produced by the Department, it is acknowledged that there is no such evidence on record. Learned DR has impressed upon that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se agreement as is mentioned above unless and until there is a cogent evidence produced by the Department to show that the deemed intention had actually and ever been acted upon by the appellant. Apparently and admittedly, there is no such evidence produced by the Department. In absence thereof confirmation to the proposal that the leased premises have not been exclusively used by the appellant is the confirmation based merely on presumption. Such confirmation does not warrant any recovery of the Cenvat Credit as has been availed by the appellant against the Service Tax paid to M/s. GSPL in lieu of the aforesaid lease agreement. 6. Further, I hold that service in question i.e. renting of immovable property is very well covered in means as well as includes clause of the definition of the input service as given under Rule 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. This Rule allows Cenvat Credit of all such services that are used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. There is no denial on part of the Department that the premises taken on lease were used for the storage of raw-material required for the manufacture of tyres, the finished goods of the appellant. The serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such input. 9. The perusal of the Rule makes it abundantly clear that scope of this rule is for reversal of credit of Cenvatable inputs. It is also clear that the permission is required only in cae of the storage of excisable raw-material. It is not the fact for the present appeal. Appellant has submitted that the input stored in the premises was non-excisable. There is no denial by the Department nor there is allegation in the Show Cause Notice about the inputs to be excisable. I observe that, in fact, there is no relevant evidence nor any discussion in the order under challenge despite that the allegation is therein Show Cause Notice and was duly replied by the appellant in his appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). However, the demand has still been confirmed for non-compliance of these rules. In view of the scope of Rule 8 as discussed above, I am of the opinion that Rule 8 has wrongly been invoked by the Department while denying the admissibility of Cenvat Credit to the appellants for his raw-material to have been stored in the impugned leased premises taken on lease by the appellant exclusively from M/s. GSPL an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
