The Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench ruled that Nayara Energy is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of all the services related to manufacturing activity, overall business activity.
The issue involved in the case is that whether the appellant, Nayara Energy is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of Services namely Air Civil Enclave Services, Authorized Service Station Service, Mandap Keeper Service, Outdoor Caterer Service, Rent-a-Cab Operatorās Service, Tour Operator Service, Travel Agent Service, Renting of Immovable Service, Convention Service, Company Secretary Service, Steamer Agent Service and Telecommunication Service.
The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order disallowed the credit in respect of above Services mainly on the ground that the appellant could not establish the nexus between the said services and appellantās manufacturing/business activity.
The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of some services allowed the Cenvat Credit in principle but due to non-availability of invoice/ledger invoice rejected the Cenvat Credit.
Mrs. Dimple Gohil, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in respect of all these services, the invoices were issued in the name of the appellant. All these services were used either in relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellant or related to business activity. Therefore, it is clearly covered under the definition of Input Service as provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 at the relevant period i.e. June- 2008 to February-2009.
On the other hand Shri Sharad Airan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He further submits that since the appellant could not provide the evidence of having nexus between the services and appellantās manufacturing/business activity, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the Cenvat Credit.
The coram of Ramesh Nair noted that as per the use declared by the appellant, all the services were used either in relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellant or in relation to the overall business activity. It is also not disputed that the invoices were issued in the name of the appellant therefore, there is no question of receipt and use of service by any other person except by the appellant.
Therefore, the tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat Credit. However, in respect of the same services, some of the invoices were not produced by the appellant which needs to be verified. In such cases, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
