2016 (10) TMI 1140 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input service - Auction service - Insurance service - Outdoor catering service - Rent a cab service - Outward transportation factory to consumer - Held that - all the services in question are eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as held in various decisions - It is made clear that auction service involving credit of ₹ 2163/- is also eligible for Cenvat credit as this is concerned with the activities relating to business and in the light of the contents of the definition of input service given in Rule 2(l) of CCR. Reliance placed in the case of Madras Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore 2015 (7) TMI 1001 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , CCE, Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of Cenvat credit for input services including auction service, insurance service, outdoor catering service, rent a cab service, and outward transportation factory to consumer.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Jaipur addressed the common issue of disallowing Cenvat credit for various input services as per the impugned orders by lower Revenue authorities. The appellant, M/s Mangalam Cement, was represented by Advocate Ms. Rinky Arora, while the Revenue was represented by Ms. Suchitra Sharma. The advocate submitted that Cenvat credit had been disallowed on five input services, including auction service, insurance service, outdoor catering service, rent a cab service, and outward transportation from the factory to the consumer.

The Revenue authorities reiterated their findings and argued against allowing Cenvat credit for outward transportation service, questioning whether Central Excise duty was paid on the freight element. The Tribunal considered the facts, submissions, and relevant case laws. Referring to the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the Tribunal analyzed previous decisions by different High Courts, such as the Karnataka High Court and the Bombay High Court, to determine the eligibility of the services for Cenvat credit under Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Based on the definition of input service and the precedents cited, the Tribunal concluded that all the services in question, including auction service, were eligible for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal specifically highlighted that auction service was related to business activities and, therefore, qualified for Cenvat credit. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument regarding the payment of Central Excise duty on the freight element, deeming it irrelevant as it was not raised in the show cause notice and was deemed immaterial for the proceedings. Consequently, all appeals were allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.