2014 (3) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Manpower service - Input service credit on rent-a-cab service - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - nowhere manpower service was said to be supplied at the doorstep of the appellant. Furthermore, remuneration is to be paid by the appellant for manpower is part of the agreement. Nowhere in the agreement it is shown how the quantification is to be done. In the absence of these things, the contention of the counsel is not acceptable that transportation of employees is part of manpower supply. Therefore in the absence of concrete evidence by the appellant the input service credit is denied. Further, I find that there was no intention of the appellant to avail inadmissible, credit. Therefore penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted. Further, I find that the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation as there was no malafide intention of the appellant to avail inadmissible credit. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of input service credit on rent-a-cab service
- Whether transportation of employees qualifies as rent-a-cab service
- Applicability of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Interpretation of the agreement with service provider

Analysis:
The appellant contested the denial of input service credit on rent-a-cab service for the period in question, citing that the transportation of employees was part of the manpower supply service provided by the service provider. The appellant argued that the transportation charges were integral to the manpower services supplied and should therefore be eligible for credit. However, the respondent opposed this stance, asserting that transportation of employees falls under the purview of rent-a-cab service as per the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent highlighted the absence of specific provisions in the agreement with the service provider regarding the supply of manpower at the appellant's doorstep or the quantification of manpower-related charges.

Upon examination of the agreement, the judge found that there was no explicit mention of supplying manpower at the appellant's doorstep, and the remuneration for manpower was a distinct part of the agreement. The judge noted the lack of clarity regarding quantification in the agreement. Consequently, the judge rejected the appellant's argument that transportation of employees constituted a component of the manpower supply service. Due to insufficient evidence provided by the appellant to support their claim, the input service credit was denied. Additionally, the judge determined that there was no deliberate intention on the appellant's part to avail inadmissible credit, leading to the conclusion that penalty under Section 11AC was unwarranted. The judge also ruled out the applicability of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice, as there was no malicious intent on the appellant's part to claim inadmissible credit.

In the final verdict, the judge confirmed the disallowance of inadmissible credit for the normal period of limitation along with interest, ultimately disposing of the appeal in the aforementioned terms.