2013 (5) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of Cenvat credit - Air Travel Agent service, Rent-a-Cab service, Mandap Deeper Service, Rail Travel Agent s service & Tour Operator Service - As per Revenue these services have no nexus with the manufacturing activities and therefore service tax paid on the services could not have been availed. Held that - In the appeal filed by Revenue, they have not submitted any evidence to contradict the claim of the respondent. That being the case, there is no benefit of prolonging the matter involving such small amounts by remanding the matter and I am inclined to accept the finding of the Commissioner and the submissions of the counsel for the respondent that these services were used for the purposes as stated in the reply to the SCN and that they have not recovered any amount from the employees. Thus, allow CENVAT credit of tax paid on first two services viz. Air Travel Agent Service & Rent-a-cab service. Revenue s appeal is rejected in respect of these services. In respect of the other three services, the respondent have given up their claim and accordingly Revenue s appeal is allowed to the extent of denial of CENVAT credit totaling to along with appropriate interest.

Summary

Issues involved:
Dispute over CENVAT credit for various services availed by the respondent manufacturer.

Analysis:
1. The respondent, a manufacturer of excisable goods, claimed CENVAT credit for services used during June 2008 to March 2011. The disputed services included Air Travel Agent, Rent-a-Cab, Mandap Deeper, Rail Travel Agent, and Tour Operator services.

2. The Revenue contended that the services had no nexus with manufacturing activities, leading to Show Cause Notices and demands. The Commissioner allowed CENVAT credit for Air Travel Agent and Rent-a-Cab services but did not provide specific findings for the other three services.

3. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner did not examine relevant documents to support the claim for Air Travel Agent and Rent-a-Cab services. The lack of specific findings for the other services warranted a remand for factual evidence examination.

4. The respondent's counsel provided documents for Air Travel Agent and Rent-a-Cab services, supporting their use as claimed. However, no records were called for the other three services. The respondent did not charge employees for the services provided.

5. The respondent acknowledged the small amounts involved for the other three services and did not press for their claim due to the lack of supporting documentation.

6. The Tribunal noted that the dispute centered on whether Rent-a-Cab and Air Travel Agent services qualified as 'input services.' The lack of evidence contradicting the respondent's claim led to accepting the Commissioner's findings. CENVAT credit was allowed for the first two services as they were used for stated purposes without employee charges.

7. The respondent relinquished the claim for the remaining three services, resulting in the allowance of Revenue's appeal to deny CENVAT credit, amounting to Rs.20,845, along with interest. Penalties were deemed inapplicable.

8. The Tribunal partially allowed Revenue's appeal, granting CENVAT credit for Air Travel Agent and Rent-a-Cab services while upholding the denial for the other three services, without imposing penalties.