Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Manufacturing Activity Cannot be Treated as Exempted Service: CESTAT Sets Aside CENVAT Credit Demand [Read Order]

Tribunal holds Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules inapplicable where the activity undertaken amounts to manufacture.

Manufacturing Activity Cannot be Treated as Exempted Service: CESTAT Sets Aside CENVAT Credit Demand [Read Order]
X

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the demand raised observing that an activity that qualifies to be manufactured under the Central Excise Act cannot be treated as exempted service for the purpose of demanding reversal of CENVAT credit. The Department had raised the dispute against the assessee on the grounds that the assessee had...


The Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the demand raised observing that an activity that qualifies to be manufactured under the Central Excise Act cannot be treated as exempted service for the purpose of demanding reversal of CENVAT credit.

The Department had raised the dispute against the assessee on the grounds that the assessee had availed CENVAT credit for the input services during the course of performing the job work activities.

Further,the Department claimed that the activity undertaken by the assessee qualifies to be an exempted service and therefore the assessee is liable to reverse the credit under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The demand for reversal of CENVAT credit along with interest and penalties was confirmed by the adjudicating authority.

The contention of the assessee was that the work done by it led to a process that constituted manufacture as per the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, it could not qualify as an exempted service under the CENVAT Credit Rules.

It was contended that once the service qualifies as a manufacturer,the provisions of the rules with regard to reversal of credit as applicable to exempted services, could not be invoked.

READ MORE: Subsequent PurchaserCannot Defeat Prior Mortgage: DRT Delhi Dismisses Securitisation ApplicationFiled by Flat Buyer

The contention of the Department was that the service was a service and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 would apply.

After analyzing the nature of the activity undertaken and the statutory provisions the Tribunal comprising Binu Tamta[Judicial Member] and Hemambika. R Priya [ Technical Member] observed that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacturing. It also held that the attempt made by the department to classify the activity undertaken as an exempt service was legally untenable.

The Tribunal also observed that the applicability of the provisions under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules is applicable only if the inputs or input services are utilized for the purpose of providing exempt service.

Since the appellant was engaged in manufacturing activity, the provisions for reversal of CENVAT credits cannot be invoked.Thus, the demand for CENVAT credits along with interest and penalties was set aside.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

M/s.Agrawal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise , 2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 279 , Service Tax Appeal No. 53684 of 2023 , 19 February 2026 , Shri T.R. Rustagi , Shri S.K. Meena
M/s.Agrawal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 279Case Number :  Service Tax Appeal No. 53684 of 2023Date of Judgement :  19 February 2026Coram :  HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) & HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)Counsel of Appellant :  Shri T.R. RustagiCounsel Of Respondent :  Shri S.K. Meena
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019