2015 (10) TMI 2414 - HC - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Use of capital goods in providing Airport services Chassis of motor vehicles were converted into toilet carts and water carts - Revenue alleged that during the period in question Respondent was providing both taxable and exempted services Further alleged that credit availed in excess of permissible limit of 20% on output services and motor vehicle chassis do not qualify capital goods in relation to airport services Respondent contended that Notification No. 33/2007-SERVICE TAX only exempts services provided to a foreign diplomatic mission or consular post in India. Held That - No factual basis found for CCE(A) to have concluded that on account of bills for providing services having been raised on German Embassy and payments having been made by German Embassy, nature of services rendered was an exempted service - It was incumbent on Revenue to have placed some material on record to prove that services were provided not to German Air Force but to German Embassy. Eligibility of credit on Capital Goods - Chassis of motor vehicles were converted into toilet carts and water carts and were not registered - Used only for cargo handling services and not on roads Same eligible to be capital goods credit allowed. Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against final order passed by CESTAT under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Availing Cenvat credit for wrongly claimed services and goods.
3. Nature of services provided by the Respondent.
4. Eligibility of goods for availing Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (CST) against the final order of CESTAT concerning the Respondent's alleged wrongful availing of Cenvat credit. The Respondent was accused of wrongly claiming Cenvat credit for providing 'airport services' instead of cargo handling services during the period 2005-06 and 2008-09. The dispute revolved around the proper classification of services and the utilization of Cenvat credit exceeding the permissible limit.

2. The primary contention was whether the Respondent could utilize Cenvat credit beyond the 20% limit stipulated by the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and whether the availed credit on goods not eligible as inputs or capital goods was justified. The CCE (A) affirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice, but the CESTAT overturned this decision, emphasizing the lack of proof that the services provided were exempted.

3. The Court analyzed the nature of services provided by the Respondent, focusing on the distinction between 'airport services' and cargo handling services. It was observed that the Respondent's services were related to cargo handling for the German Air Force, not the German Embassy, and thus were taxable under Section 65(105) (zr) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court emphasized the importance of specific definitions over general descriptions in determining taxable services.

4. Regarding the eligibility of goods for availing Cenvat credit, the Court examined the use of toilet carts and water carts in the ground handling operations at the airport. The CESTAT found that these carts, though not registered as motor vehicles, were essential for cargo handling services and qualified as capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Court upheld this finding, citing legal precedents and the specific usage of the carts in the cargo handling operations.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT's decision on both issues. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual evidence and proper classification of services and goods in determining the eligibility for availing Cenvat credit.