Order date – 28 October 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, had provided taxable services under the category of ‘Consulting Engineering Services” and “Supply of Tangible Goods Services” during the period from October 2011 to March 2012 for a total value of Rs.2,22,75,660/- and discharged Service Tax of Rs.26,68,059/- by utilizing CENVAT Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services, which was available to them as a manufacturer of those goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 
• Show Cause Notice dated 14.07.2015 was issued on the ground that wrong utilization of CENVAT Credit towards payment of Service Tax on output services.  Consequently ordered for recovery of cenvat credit along with interest.
• Aggrieved Appellant had filed an appeal 

Issue – 

• Whether the appellant can avail CENVAT credit for the services provided by them? 

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that in terms of Rule 3(1) a manufacturer of excisable goods can take credit of CENVAT paid on input services and there is no such requirement for one to one co-relation and there is no bar on the utilization of CENVAT credit availed on input services for payment of tax on excisable goods so manufactured and cleared.
• It is also find that C.B.E. & C. vide Letter dated 30-3-2010, clarified that Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services which are used for manufacture of goods or for provision of services is available in a common pool and can be used for payment of Excise duty and/or Service Tax. Credit accumulated by the service provider or manufacturer on the input services availed as well as inputs is available for payment of Excise duty or Service Tax.
• Further, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of CCE, Pune1. S.S.Engineers [2016 (42) STR 3 (Bom.) and in many other cases it is held that the inputs or input services are availed on payment of duty and as long as they are capable of being used in the provision of Service Tax and manufacture of excisable goods, credit cannot be denied and that there is no requirement of one-to-one correlation.
• Appeal is allowed.