Full News

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allows Cenvat Credit on various services used in manufacturing activities.

Customs Tribunal Allows Cenvat Credit on Services Used in Manufacturing

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad, issued a final order in Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2016 - DB. The appeal was filed by General Motors India Pvt Ltd against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II. The Tribunal set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit on various services used in manufacturing activities, stating that these services qualified as input services under the definition provided in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Case Name:

Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2016 - DB: General Motors India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II

Key Takeaways:

The denial of Cenvat Credit based on services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service was not valid.
The main part of the definition, which includes any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, covers almost all services used in relation to manufacturing.
Renting of immovable property service for the corporate office was considered to have a nexus with the manufacturing activities and was eligible for Cenvat Credit.
The Tribunal referred to various judgments that had held similar services to be admissible input services, supporting the appellant’s claim.
The appellant was entitled to the Cenvat Credit on the services in question.

Case Synopsis:

The document you provided is a Final Order issued by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad. The case number is Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2016 - DB. The appeal was filed by General Motors India Pvt Ltd against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II.

In this case, the demand for Cenvat Credit was made for the period August 2012 to November 2012 on various services. The appellant argued that all these services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities. They cited several judgments to support their claim that these services should be considered as input services.

The Adjudicating authority denied the credit mainly on the ground that the services were not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They also argued that the renting of immovable property service for the corporate office had no nexus with the manufacturing unit.

After considering the submissions made by both sides and perusing the record, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit based on the services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition was not a valid reason. The main part of the definition, which includes any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, was broad enough to cover almost all the services used in relation to the manufacture of the final product.

Regarding the renting of immovable property service, the Tribunal found that since the corporate office was operated only for the operation of the manufacturing of the final product, it was used in relation to the manufacture of the final product.

The Tribunal also referred to various judgments that had considered similar services and held them to be admissible input services. Based on these judgments, the Tribunal concluded that all the services in question were admissible input services under the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat Credit on these services.

As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed

Please note that the information provided is based on the document you provided, and I do not have access to any additional information or context.

FAQ:

Q1: What was the main issue in the case?

A1: The main issue was the denial of Cenvat Credit on various services used in manufacturing activities, based on the argument that these services were not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service.

Q2: What was the decision of the Customs Tribunal?

A2: The Customs Tribunal set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit and allowed the appeal, stating that the services in question qualified as input services under the definition provided in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Q3: What were the key arguments made by the appellant?

A3: The appellant argued that all the services in question were used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities. They cited various judgments to support their claim that these services should be considered as input services.

Q4: What was the basis for the Tribunal’s decision?

A4: The Tribunal found that the denial of credit based on the services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition was not valid. The main part of the definition, which covers any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, was broad enough to include almost all services used in relation to manufacturing. The Tribunal also considered the nexus between the renting of immovable property service for the corporate office and the manufacturing activities.

In the present case the demand of Cenvat Credit was made for the period

August 2012 to November 2012 on the following services:

(i) Renting of immovable property

(ii) Business support services and Business Auxiliary service

(iii) Election & Commissioning Service

(iv) Sponsorship services

(v) Warehouse services

(vi) General insurance services

(vii) Courier services

(viii) Telephone services

(ix) Air Travel Agency

(x) Pandal and Shamiyana Services

On the ground that the services are not qualified in terms of definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. Shri Harish Bindumadhvan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that all these services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities in relation to the goods manufactured by the appellant. He submits that this issue has been time and again considered in various judgments and almost all the services have been held as input service. He placed reliance on the following judgments:

Collector of Central Excise V. Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC)

Doypack Systems (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, 1988 (2) TMI 61- (SC)

M/s Delta Electronics India Pvt Ltd V. commissioner of CGST Deharadun, 2023 (7) TMI 50 – CESTAT New Delhi

M/s Sundaram Clayton Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Chennai-II Commissionerate, 2019 (12) TMI 228 – CESTAT Chennai

Ramala Sahkari Clayton Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Meerut-I, 2016 (2) TMI 902 – S.C.

Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation V. High Land

coffee works, 1991 (3) SCC 617

Commissioner of Central Excise V. M/s ADF Foods Ltd., 2013 (1) TMI 607- Gujarat High Court

2.1 He also filed detailed synopsis dated 19th October, 2023 along with compilation of the legal provisions and the judgments which is taken on record.

3. Shri Ashok Thanvi, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the Adjudicating authority has denied the credit mainly on the ground that since all the subject services are not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition, the same do not qualify as input service. As regard renting of immovable property services, the authority below denied the credit on the ground that since this service is related to renting of the premises of corporate office the same has no nexus with the manufacturing unit.

4.1 We find that as regard the contention of the Adjudicating authority that the services are not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition the same cannot be reason for denial of the Credit as the main part of the definition i.e. any service used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and clearance of final goods up to place of removal is vide enough to cover almost all the services which are used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacturer of the final product.

4.2 We are of the view that since a manufacturing unit when manufacture goods there are various activities of the services which are used directly or indirectly exclusively in relation to the manufacture of the goods. it is not a case of the department that the appellant is carrying out any other activity other than the manufacture. Therefore, all the services were received by the appellant are in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The inclusive portion of the definition is only to avoid any misinterpretation of the definition. Otherwise the main clause of the definition is so wide which takes into its ambit all the services whether the same is mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition or otherwise. Therefore, only on the ground that the input services are not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition cannot be a reason for denial of Cenvat Credit.

4.3 As regard the services of renting of immovable property, in this case the appellant’s corporate office has taken the office premises on rent and the service Tax paid on such renting of immovable has been distributed proportionately to their two units, which is not under dispute. The contention of the Adjudicating authority is that renting of immovable property service of corporate office has no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant unit.

4.4 In this regard, we find that since the appellant are exclusively involved in manufacturing operational in both their unit. The corporate office is operated only for the operation of the manufacturing of the final product. Therefore, it cannot be said that the corporate office is not used in or in relation to manufacture of final product.

4.5 We find that all the services in question have been considered in various judgments by this Tribunal and various Courts and it was held that these services are admissible input service and credit is available. The judgments in respect of each and every service involved in the present case are given as under:

Interpretation of inclusive definition

(i) Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-1, 2016 (2) TMI 902-SUPREME COURT

(ii)Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works, 1991 (3) SCC 617

(iii) Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S ADF Foods Ltd., 2013 (1) TMI 607- GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Admissibility of ISD Credit to be judged on the end of the ISD

(i) Castrol India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (9) TMI 709 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

(ii)CST, Ahmedabad v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., 2008 (12) TMI 90- 83 CESTAT AHMEDABAD

The Credit availed on renting of immovable property was eligible

(i) Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-I v. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (277) EL.T. 317 (Kar.)

(ii)M/S Force Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune1, 9 2018 (1) TMI 1202 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Business Support/ Auxiliary services are input services

(i) M/S Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(ii)Swiss Glascoate Equipments v. CCE & ST, Vadodara-1, 2022 (3) TMI 47-CESTAT AHMEDABAD

(iii) Universal Medicap Ltd. v. C.CE. & S.T., Vadodara-11, 2022 (6) TMI 818-CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Erection and Commissioning services are input services

(i) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot, 2022 (4) TMI 729- CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Sponsorship services are input services

(i) M/S JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - Belgaum, 2021 (12) TMI 381-CESTAT BANGALORE

(ii)M/S HCL Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, 2015 (8) TMI 595- CESTAT NEW DELHI

Warehouse services are input services

(i) Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T., Surat, 2021 (4) TMI CESTAT AHMEDABAD

General insurance services

(i) M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I, 2019 (6) TMI 194-CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Courier services are input services

(i) Nilkamal Ltd. v. C.C.E & S.T., 2022 (11) TMI 497 CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Telephone services are input services

(i) Gujarat Borosil Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2019 (8) TMI 202-CESTAT AHMEDABAD

(ii)Essel Propack Ltd. v. CGST & CX, Thane, 2018 (8) TMI 78-CESTAT MUMBAI

Air Travel Agency services are input services

(i) Duravit India P. Ltd. v. C.C.E, 2022 (5) TMI 1114 CESTAT AHMEDABAD.

(ii)M/S. Inox India P. Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T., Vadodra-II, 2019 (9) TMI 1642 CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Pandal and Shamiyan services are input services

(i)Reliance Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, 2018 (5) TMI 488- CESTAT MUMBAI

From the above decisions, in respect of each and every services involved in the present case the issue is no longer res-Integra. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that all the services are admissible input service qualify under the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant are clearly entitled for the Cenvat Credit on such services.

5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, appeal is allowed.

(Pronounced in the open court on 06.11.2023)

(RAMESH NAIR)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

(RAJU)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

Customs Tribunal Allows Cenvat Credit on Services Used in Manufacturing

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/10859-2016.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

Case Name: Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2016 - DB: General Motors India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II Key Takeaways: <ol><li>The denial of Cenvat Credit based on services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service was not valid.</li><li>The main part of the definition, which includes any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, covers almost all services used in relation to manufacturing.</li><li>Renting of immovable property service for the corporate office was considered to have a nexus with the manufacturing activities and was eligible for Cenvat Credit.</li><li>The Tribunal referred to various judgments that had held similar services to be admissible input services, supporting the appellant’s claim.</li><li>The appellant was entitled to the Cenvat Credit on the services in question.</li></ol> Case Synopsis: The document you provided is a Final Order issued by the Customs, Excise &amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad. The case number is Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2016 - DB. The appeal was filed by General Motors India Pvt Ltd against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II. In this case, the demand for Cenvat Credit was made for the period August 2012 to November 2012 on various services. The appellant argued that all these services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities. They cited several judgments to support their claim that these services should be considered as input services. The Adjudicating authority denied the credit mainly on the ground that the services were not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They also argued that the renting of immovable property service for the corporate office had no nexus with the manufacturing unit. After considering the submissions made by both sides and perusing the record, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit based on the services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition was not a valid reason. The main part of the definition, which includes any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, was broad enough to cover almost all the services used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Regarding the renting of immovable property service, the Tribunal found that since the corporate office was operated only for the operation of the manufacturing of the final product, it was used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The Tribunal also referred to various judgments that had considered similar services and held them to be admissible input services. Based on these judgments, the Tribunal concluded that all the services in question were admissible input services under the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat Credit on these services. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed Please note that the information provided is based on the document you provided, and I do not have access to any additional information or context.
 
FAQ: Q1: What was the main issue in the case?A1: The main issue was the denial of Cenvat Credit on various services used in manufacturing activities, based on the argument that these services were not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service. Q2: What was the decision of the Customs Tribunal?A2: The Customs Tribunal set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit and allowed the appeal, stating that the services in question qualified as input services under the definition provided in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Q3: What were the key arguments made by the appellant?A3: The appellant argued that all the services in question were used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities. They cited various judgments to support their claim that these services should be considered as input services. Q4: What was the basis for the Tribunal’s decision?A4: The Tribunal found that the denial of credit based on the services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition was not valid. The main part of the definition, which covers any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, was broad enough to include almost all services used in relation to manufacturing. The Tribunal also considered the nexus between the renting of immovable property service for the corporate office and the manufacturing activities. <img id="1" class="image-in" src="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/logos/CESTATWordToWordOrder.jpeg"> In the present case the demand of Cenvat Credit was made for the periodAugust 2012 to November 2012 on the following services: (i) Renting of immovable property (ii) Business support services and Business Auxiliary service (iii) Election &amp; Commissioning Service (iv) Sponsorship services (v) Warehouse services (vi) General insurance services (vii) Courier services (viii) Telephone services (ix) Air Travel Agency (x) Pandal and Shamiyana Services On the ground that the services are not qualified in terms of definition of
input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Shri Harish Bindumadhvan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant at the outset submits that all these services were used in or in
relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities in relation to the goods manufactured by the appellant. He submits that this
issue has been time and again considered in various judgments and almost all
the services have been held as input service. He placed reliance on the
following judgments: Collector of Central Excise V. Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1991
(55) ELT 444 (SC) Doypack Systems (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, 1988 (2) TMI 61- (SC) M/s Delta Electronics India Pvt Ltd V. commissioner of CGST
Deharadun, 2023 (7) TMI 50 – CESTAT New Delhi M/s Sundaram Clayton Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise,Chennai-II Commissionerate, 2019 (12) TMI 228 – CESTAT Chennai Ramala Sahkari Clayton Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise,Meerut-I, 2016 (2) TMI 902 – S.C. Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation V. High Landcoffee works, 1991 (3) SCC 617 Commissioner of Central Excise V. M/s ADF Foods Ltd., 2013 (1) TMI
607- Gujarat High Court 2.1 He also filed detailed synopsis dated 19th October, 2023 along with
compilation of the legal provisions and the judgments which is taken on
record. 3. Shri Ashok Thanvi, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on
behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and
perusal of record, we find that the Adjudicating authority has denied the
credit mainly on the ground that since all the subject services are not
mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition, the same do not qualify as input service. As regard renting of immovable property services, the authority below denied the credit on the ground that since this service is related to renting of the premises of corporate office the same has no nexus with the manufacturing unit. 4.1 We find that as regard the contention of the Adjudicating authority that
the services are not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition the same cannot be reason for denial of the Credit as the main part of the definition i.e. any service used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and clearance of final goods up to place of removal is vide enough to cover almost all the services which are used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacturer of the final product. 4.2 We are of the view that since a manufacturing unit when manufacture goods there are various activities of the services which are used directly or indirectly exclusively in relation to the manufacture of the goods. it is not a case of the department that the appellant is carrying out any other activity other than the manufacture. Therefore, all the services were received by the appellant are in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The inclusive portion of the definition is only to avoid any misinterpretation of the definition. Otherwise the main clause of the definition is so wide which takes into its ambit all the services whether the same is mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition or otherwise. Therefore, only on the ground that the input services are not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition cannot be a reason for denial of Cenvat Credit. 4.3 As regard the services of renting of immovable property, in this case
the appellant’s corporate office has taken the office premises on rent and the service Tax paid on such renting of immovable has been distributed proportionately to their two units, which is not under dispute. The contention of the Adjudicating authority is that renting of immovable property service of corporate office has no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant unit. 4.4 In this regard, we find that since the appellant are exclusively involved in manufacturing operational in both their unit. The corporate office is operated only for the operation of the manufacturing of the final product. Therefore, it cannot be said that the corporate office is not used in or in relation to manufacture of final product. 4.5 We find that all the services in question have been considered in various judgments by this Tribunal and various Courts and it was held that these services are admissible input service and credit is available. The judgments in respect of each and every service involved in the present case are given as under: Interpretation of inclusive definition (i) Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Meerut-1, 2016 (2) TMI 902-SUPREME COURT (ii)Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. High
Land Coffee Works, 1991 (3) SCC 617 (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S ADF Foods Ltd., 2013 (1)
TMI 607- GUJARAT HIGH COURTAdmissibility of ISD Credit to be judged on the end of the ISD (i) Castrol India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (9)
TMI 709 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD (ii)CST, Ahmedabad v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., 2008 (12) TMI 90-
83 CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Credit availed on renting of immovable property was eligible (i) Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-I v. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
2012 (277) EL.T. 317 (Kar.) (ii)M/S Force Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune1, 9 2018 (1) TMI 1202 - CESTAT MUMBAI Business Support/ Auxiliary services are input services (i) M/S Deepak Fertilizers &amp; Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (ii)Swiss Glascoate Equipments v. CCE &amp; ST, Vadodara-1, 2022 (3)
TMI 47-CESTAT AHMEDABAD (iii) Universal Medicap Ltd. v. C.CE. &amp; S.T., Vadodara-11, 2022
(6) TMI 818-CESTAT AHMEDABAD Erection and Commissioning services are input services (i) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. &amp; S.T. Rajkot, 2022 (4) TMI
729- CESTAT AHMEDABAD Sponsorship services are input services (i) M/S JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
and Service Tax - Belgaum, 2021 (12) TMI 381-CESTAT BANGALORE (ii)M/S HCL Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, 2015 (8) TMI 595-
CESTAT NEW DELHI Warehouse services are input services (i) Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. v. C.C.E. &amp;amp; S.T., Surat, 2021 (4)
TMI CESTAT AHMEDABAD General insurance services (i) M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. &amp; S.T. Vadodara-I, 2019
(6) TMI 194-CESTAT AHMEDABAD Courier services are input services (i) Nilkamal Ltd. v. C.C.E &amp; S.T., 2022 (11) TMI 497 CESTAT
AHMEDABAD Telephone services are input services (i) Gujarat Borosil Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2019 (8)
TMI 202-CESTAT AHMEDABAD (ii)Essel Propack Ltd. v. CGST &amp; CX, Thane, 2018 (8) TMI 78-CESTAT
MUMBAI Air Travel Agency services are input services (i) Duravit India P. Ltd. v. C.C.E, 2022 (5) TMI 1114 CESTAT
AHMEDABAD. (ii)M/S. Inox India P. Ltd. v. C.C.E. &amp; S.T., Vadodra-II, 2019 (9) TMI
1642 CESTAT AHMEDABAD Pandal and Shamiyan services are input services (i)Reliance Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax,
Mumbai, 2018 (5) TMI 488- CESTAT MUMBAI From the above decisions, in respect of each and every services involved in
the present case the issue is no longer res-Integra. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that all the services are admissible input service qualify under the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant are clearly entitled for the Cenvat Credit on such services. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in the open court on 06.11.2023) (RAMESH NAIR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (RAJU) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Case Name: Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2016 - DB: General Motors India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II Key Takeaways: <ol><li>The denial of Cenvat Credit based on services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service was not valid.</li><li>The main part of the definition, which includes any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, covers almost all services used in relation to manufacturing.</li><li>Renting of immovable property service for the corporate office was considered to have a nexus with the manufacturing activities and was eligible for Cenvat Credit.</li><li>The Tribunal referred to various judgments that had held similar services to be admissible input services, supporting the appellant’s claim.</li><li>The appellant was entitled to the Cenvat Credit on the services in question.</li></ol> Case Synopsis: The document you provided is a Final Order issued by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad. The case number is Excise Appeal No. 10859 of 2016 - DB. The appeal was filed by General Motors India Pvt Ltd against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II. In this case, the demand for Cenvat Credit was made for the period August 2012 to November 2012 on various services. The appellant argued that all these services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities. They cited several judgments to support their claim that these services should be considered as input services. The Adjudicating authority denied the credit mainly on the ground that the services were not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They also argued that the renting of immovable property service for the corporate office had no nexus with the manufacturing unit. After considering the submissions made by both sides and perusing the record, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit based on the services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition was not a valid reason. The main part of the definition, which includes any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, was broad enough to cover almost all the services used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Regarding the renting of immovable property service, the Tribunal found that since the corporate office was operated only for the operation of the manufacturing of the final product, it was used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The Tribunal also referred to various judgments that had considered similar services and held them to be admissible input services. Based on these judgments, the Tribunal concluded that all the services in question were admissible input services under the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat Credit on these services. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed Please note that the information provided is based on the document you provided, and I do not have access to any additional information or context.
 
FAQ: Q1: What was the main issue in the case?A1: The main issue was the denial of Cenvat Credit on various services used in manufacturing activities, based on the argument that these services were not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service. Q2: What was the decision of the Customs Tribunal?A2: The Customs Tribunal set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit and allowed the appeal, stating that the services in question qualified as input services under the definition provided in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Q3: What were the key arguments made by the appellant?A3: The appellant argued that all the services in question were used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities. They cited various judgments to support their claim that these services should be considered as input services. Q4: What was the basis for the Tribunal’s decision?A4: The Tribunal found that the denial of credit based on the services not being mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition was not valid. The main part of the definition, which covers any service used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, was broad enough to include almost all services used in relation to manufacturing. The Tribunal also considered the nexus between the renting of immovable property service for the corporate office and the manufacturing activities. <img id="1" class="image-in" src="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/logos/CESTATWordToWordOrder.jpeg"> In the present case the demand of Cenvat Credit was made for the periodAugust 2012 to November 2012 on the following services: (i) Renting of immovable property (ii) Business support services and Business Auxiliary service (iii) Election & Commissioning Service (iv) Sponsorship services (v) Warehouse services (vi) General insurance services (vii) Courier services (viii) Telephone services (ix) Air Travel Agency (x) Pandal and Shamiyana Services On the ground that the services are not qualified in terms of definition of
input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Shri Harish Bindumadhvan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant at the outset submits that all these services were used in or in
relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and other business activities in relation to the goods manufactured by the appellant. He submits that this
issue has been time and again considered in various judgments and almost all
the services have been held as input service. He placed reliance on the
following judgments: Collector of Central Excise V. Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1991
(55) ELT 444 (SC) Doypack Systems (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, 1988 (2) TMI 61- (SC) M/s Delta Electronics India Pvt Ltd V. commissioner of CGST
Deharadun, 2023 (7) TMI 50 – CESTAT New Delhi M/s Sundaram Clayton Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise,Chennai-II Commissionerate, 2019 (12) TMI 228 – CESTAT Chennai Ramala Sahkari Clayton Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise,Meerut-I, 2016 (2) TMI 902 – S.C. Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation V. High Landcoffee works, 1991 (3) SCC 617 Commissioner of Central Excise V. M/s ADF Foods Ltd., 2013 (1) TMI
607- Gujarat High Court 2.1 He also filed detailed synopsis dated 19th October, 2023 along with
compilation of the legal provisions and the judgments which is taken on
record. 3. Shri Ashok Thanvi, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on
behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and
perusal of record, we find that the Adjudicating authority has denied the
credit mainly on the ground that since all the subject services are not
mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition, the same do not qualify as input service. As regard renting of immovable property services, the authority below denied the credit on the ground that since this service is related to renting of the premises of corporate office the same has no nexus with the manufacturing unit. 4.1 We find that as regard the contention of the Adjudicating authority that
the services are not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition the same cannot be reason for denial of the Credit as the main part of the definition i.e. any service used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and clearance of final goods up to place of removal is vide enough to cover almost all the services which are used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacturer of the final product. 4.2 We are of the view that since a manufacturing unit when manufacture goods there are various activities of the services which are used directly or indirectly exclusively in relation to the manufacture of the goods. it is not a case of the department that the appellant is carrying out any other activity other than the manufacture. Therefore, all the services were received by the appellant are in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The inclusive portion of the definition is only to avoid any misinterpretation of the definition. Otherwise the main clause of the definition is so wide which takes into its ambit all the services whether the same is mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition or otherwise. Therefore, only on the ground that the input services are not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition cannot be a reason for denial of Cenvat Credit. 4.3 As regard the services of renting of immovable property, in this case
the appellant’s corporate office has taken the office premises on rent and the service Tax paid on such renting of immovable has been distributed proportionately to their two units, which is not under dispute. The contention of the Adjudicating authority is that renting of immovable property service of corporate office has no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant unit. 4.4 In this regard, we find that since the appellant are exclusively involved in manufacturing operational in both their unit. The corporate office is operated only for the operation of the manufacturing of the final product. Therefore, it cannot be said that the corporate office is not used in or in relation to manufacture of final product. 4.5 We find that all the services in question have been considered in various judgments by this Tribunal and various Courts and it was held that these services are admissible input service and credit is available. The judgments in respect of each and every service involved in the present case are given as under: Interpretation of inclusive definition (i) Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Meerut-1, 2016 (2) TMI 902-SUPREME COURT (ii)Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. High
Land Coffee Works, 1991 (3) SCC 617 (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S ADF Foods Ltd., 2013 (1)
TMI 607- GUJARAT HIGH COURTAdmissibility of ISD Credit to be judged on the end of the ISD (i) Castrol India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (9)
TMI 709 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD (ii)CST, Ahmedabad v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., 2008 (12) TMI 90-
83 CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Credit availed on renting of immovable property was eligible (i) Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-I v. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
2012 (277) EL.T. 317 (Kar.) (ii)M/S Force Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune1, 9 2018 (1) TMI 1202 - CESTAT MUMBAI Business Support/ Auxiliary services are input services (i) M/S Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (ii)Swiss Glascoate Equipments v. CCE & ST, Vadodara-1, 2022 (3)
TMI 47-CESTAT AHMEDABAD (iii) Universal Medicap Ltd. v. C.CE. & S.T., Vadodara-11, 2022
(6) TMI 818-CESTAT AHMEDABAD Erection and Commissioning services are input services (i) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot, 2022 (4) TMI
729- CESTAT AHMEDABAD Sponsorship services are input services (i) M/S JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
and Service Tax - Belgaum, 2021 (12) TMI 381-CESTAT BANGALORE (ii)M/S HCL Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, 2015 (8) TMI 595-
CESTAT NEW DELHI Warehouse services are input services (i) Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. v. C.C.E. &amp; S.T., Surat, 2021 (4)
TMI CESTAT AHMEDABAD General insurance services (i) M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I, 2019
(6) TMI 194-CESTAT AHMEDABAD Courier services are input services (i) Nilkamal Ltd. v. C.C.E & S.T., 2022 (11) TMI 497 CESTAT
AHMEDABAD Telephone services are input services (i) Gujarat Borosil Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2019 (8)
TMI 202-CESTAT AHMEDABAD (ii)Essel Propack Ltd. v. CGST & CX, Thane, 2018 (8) TMI 78-CESTAT
MUMBAI Air Travel Agency services are input services (i) Duravit India P. Ltd. v. C.C.E, 2022 (5) TMI 1114 CESTAT
AHMEDABAD. (ii)M/S. Inox India P. Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T., Vadodra-II, 2019 (9) TMI
1642 CESTAT AHMEDABAD Pandal and Shamiyan services are input services (i)Reliance Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax,
Mumbai, 2018 (5) TMI 488- CESTAT MUMBAI From the above decisions, in respect of each and every services involved in
the present case the issue is no longer res-Integra. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that all the services are admissible input service qualify under the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant are clearly entitled for the Cenvat Credit on such services. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in the open court on 06.11.2023) (RAMESH NAIR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (RAJU) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Full News

Customs Tribunal Allows Cenvat Credit on Services Used in Manufacturing