2012 (9) TMI 978 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - courier service - bus hire service - tour operator service - catering service - rent a cab service - clearing and forwarding service - Held that - as per the definition of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, the intent of the legislature is that any input service availed by the assessee in the course of their business of manufacture is entitled to input service credit - appellants are entitled to avail input service credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of input service credit on various services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. Courier Service: The appellant appealed against the denial of input service credit on courier service, among others. The consultant argued citing precedents like Kodak India and Apar Industries to support their claim. The Tribunal considered the arguments and relevant judgments in similar cases.

2. Transportation of Employees (Tour Operator): The appellant contested the denial of input service credit on transportation of employees through a tour operator. The Tribunal reviewed cases like Kodak India and Hindustan Coca Coal Beverages to assess the eligibility for input service credit.

3. Rent a Cab Service: The issue of input service credit for rent a cab service was raised by the appellant. The Tribunal examined past decisions like Cable Corporation of India and Bell Ceramics to determine the applicability of input service credit in this case.

4. Clearing and Forwarding Service: The denial of input service credit for clearing and forwarding service was challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to judgments in cases like Heera Overseas and Cadila Health Care to analyze the eligibility criteria for input service credit.

5. Canteen Service: The appellant disputed the denial of input service credit on canteen services. The Tribunal considered precedents such as Ultratech Cement and Samsung Electronics to evaluate the entitlement to input service credit for canteen services.

6. Decision on Input Service Credit: The Tribunal deliberated on the conflicting views presented by the appellant's consultant and the respondent's representative. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Maruti Suzuki to address the issue of input credit. It emphasized the distinction between input and input service credit as per Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

7. Final Ruling: The Tribunal aligned with the interpretation of the legislature regarding input service credit. It concluded that any input service availed by the assessee in the course of their manufacturing business is eligible for input service credit. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim for input service credit on various services, including courier service, tour operator, rent a cab, and clearing and forwarding service.

8. Judgment Outcome: In line with the decision in Ultra Tech Cement, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting input service credit on the disputed services. The impugned order was set aside, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.