Wrongly filing of Cenvat Credit of input services on ineligible services for business purposes

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – IV
Service Tax Appeal No. 52868 of 2019 [SM]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 151 (SM) CE/JPR/2019 dated 14.05.2019
passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur]

M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. …Appellant
A-300-305 & 306-313, RIICO
Industrial Area, Chopanki
Bhiwadi-301707
Dist. Alwar (Rajasthan)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Alwar …Respondent
Central Excise Commissionerate,
„A‟ Block, Surya Nagar,
Alwar.

APPEARANCE:
Shri Shaswat Arya, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

Coram: HON’BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 DATE OF HEARING : 25/03/2021
 DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2021

FINAL ORDER NO. 51205/2021

RACHNA GUPTA:

The Order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No.151/2019dated 14.05.2019 has been assailed vide the impugned appeal.The relevant factual matrix for the present appeal is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres. The Department observed that the appellant have wrongly filed Cenvat Credit ofinput services on ineligible services as that of renting of premises for business purposes. It was observed that the appellant has utilised Cenvat Credit of service tax on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Grover Stainless Pvt. Ltd., Delhi for the services not availed exclusively by the appellants as the premises were taken on rent for being used as godown not only of the appellant but of all subsidiaries and associated companies of the appellant‟s group. The service provider leased the premises situated at A-1 RIICO,Industrial Area, Chopanki, Bhiwadi to M/s. Balkrishna IndustriesLtd. through its Vice President Mr. Narender Kumar to utilise thepremises for business purpose only but by all the subsidiaries andassociated companies of the appellant. Accordingly, vide ShowCause Notice No.1285 dated 02.06.2017, it was alleged that theservices in question do not fall within the purview of definition ofinput services and, therefore, the Cenvat Credit of Service Taxtaken on the basis of the aforesaid invoices was proposed to bedenied as being not admissible. Accordingly, an amount ofRs.17,02,715/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellantsalongwith the interest and the proportionate penalties. The saidproposal was confirmed initially vide the Order-in-Original No.72/CE/2017-18 dated 28 March, 2018. The appeal thereof wasdismissed vide the order under challenge dated 14.05.2019. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.

To know more in details find the attachment file