Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 753 - AT - Service TaxCenvat Credit - Input services - Rule 2(L) of CCR - rent-a-cab operator s service, mandapkeeper s service, decorator s service, staff welfare expenses and interior designer s services. - credit denied since the above services were not covered under specific categories of input services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - held that - The first appellate authority has clearly recorded the services utilised of various service providers as regards rent a cab operator service, mandapkeeper s service, decorator s service, staff welfare expenses and interior designer s services and had come to a conclusion that the said input services are used in or in relation for provision of output services, by the respondent. The conformation of the ground that there has to be a nexus of the utilisation of such services for providing on output service, is not in consonance with the law which has been settled as to there is no one to correlation, of the cenvat credit availed. The same ratio will be applicable in this case also. - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Irregular availment of Cenvat credit on various input services. 2. Disallowance of wrongly availed Cenvat credit and recovery order. 3. Appeal against the first appellate authority's decision. 4. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. Nexus of input services with output services for Cenvat credit eligibility. 6. Address of the assessee not mentioned on the invoices. Analysis: 1. The case involved the irregular availment of Cenvat credit on services not falling under specific categories of input services. The audit revealed the incorrect availment of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.2,83,535 on services like rent-a-cab operator's service, mandapkeeper's service, decorator's service, staff welfare expenses, and interior designer's services. 2. The adjudicating authority disallowed the wrongly availed Cenvat credit and ordered recovery under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest and penalty under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The assessee appealed the decision, and the first appellate authority set aside the order based on various legal points. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal. 4. The Additional Commissioner argued that the first appellate authority erred in not considering the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He contended that the credit availed on the mentioned services was improper, citing precedents and disputing the reliance on certain judgments. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the nexus of the input services with the output services provided by the assessee. It held that there was no strict correlation required for availing Cenvat credit, and the services were indeed utilized for the provision of output services, supporting the first appellate authority's decision. 6. The issue of the address of the assessee not being mentioned on the invoices was also addressed. The Tribunal found that the receipt and utilization of the services by the assessee for taxable output services were not in dispute, rendering the Revenue's argument on this point ineffective. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, ruling that the impugned order was legally sound and free from any defects. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.
|