CENVAT credit of Service tax — Input services — Architect Services and Interior Decorator services, Authorised Service Stations, Real Estate Agent Service and Stock-Broker Services — Credit of Service tax paid on above services could not be denied as they were directly or indirectly used for purpose of business.
Facts:
? The appellants had availed CENVAT credit of Service tax on Architect Services and Interior Decorator Services, Authorised Service Stations, Real Estate Agent Service and Stock- Broker’s Services. The lower authorities issued a show-cause notice denying credit to the appellant on the ground that as per Rule 2(1)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, input service would include any services used by them directly or indirectly in relation to the ‘manufacture of final products and clearance of final products’.
? The appellants contended that the services received by them were in respect of the premises used for the marketing programmes. Repair and maintenance of vehicle services were used by their staff and stockbroker services were used for the purpose of enhancement of their business.
? The definition of ‘input service’ means any service
“used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal”.
And includes services used in relation to setting up, modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, storage up to the place of removal and outward transportation up to the place of removal.
? According to the Department, the said services rendered outside the manufacturing premises cannot be considered as used by them directly or indirectly for manufacturing final products. The goods manufactured by the appellant were at the factory and hence the services availed by them outside the factory premises cannot be considered as input services.
Held:
It was held that the services rendered by the appellant were directly or indirectly used for the purpose of their business and hence, credit could not be denied.
