Commissioner cannot deny Cenvat Credit without the evidence of having nexus between the services and appellant’s manufacturing/business activity

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled that a Commissioner cannot deny Cenvat Credit solely on the basis of a lack of nexus between services and a company's manufacturing or business activities. The appellant argued that the services used were directly related to their business operations and fell under the definition of Input Service. The tribunal considered various judgments supporting the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit.

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO.3

Excise Appeal No.10249 of 2020

(Arising out of OIA-RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-179-2019 dated 15/11/2019 passed by
Commissioner (Appeals ) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service TaxRAJKOT)

NAYARA ENERGY LTD ………Appellant
P.B.No. 24, Head Post Office, Khambhalia,
Devbhumi Dwarka, Devbhumi Dwarka,
Gujarat

VERSUS

C.C.E. & S.T.-RAJKOT ………Respondent
Central Excise Bhavan,
Race Course Ring Road...Income Tax Office,
Rajkot, Gujarat-360001

APPEARANCE:

Mrs. Dimple Gohil, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Sharad Airan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR
Final Order No. A/11282/2021

DATE OF HEARING: 16.02.2021
DATE OF DECISION: 15.03.2021
RAMESH NAIR

The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitle for Cenvat Credit in respect of following Services:

I. Air Civil Enclave Services
II. Authorized Service Station Service.
III. Mandap Keeper Service.
IV. Outdoor Caterer Service.
V. Rent-a-Cab Operator’s Service.
VI. Tour Operator Service.
VII. Travel Agent Service.
VIII. Renting of Immovable Service
IX. Convention Service.
X. Company Secretary Service.
XI. Steamer Agent Service.
XII. Telecommunication Service.

1.1 The Learned 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 andappellant’s 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.

2. Mrs. Dimple Gohil, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in respect of all these services, the invoices wereissued in the name of the appellant. All these services were used either inrelation to manufacturing activity of the appellant or related to businessactivity. 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. She relied upon various judgments submitting that the Cenvat Credit in respect of all these services in question has been allowed in one or more judgments:-

To know more in details find the attachment file