2015 (11) TMI 721 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether Assessee would be eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on Mandap Keeper service utilised for organising meetings with dealers, vehicle launch and other promotional activities and rent-a-cab availed for conveyance of employees to and from the factory, for official conveyance including visits to various Governmental authorities and for travel in connection with business meetings, visiting dealer sites, promotional activities, etc - Held that - So far as, the question of eligibility for Cenvat credit of the Mandap Keeper service is concerned, there is no dispute that this service has been utilised for organising meetings with the dealers, vehicle launch events and other promotional activities. This issue stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (2011 (4) TMI 728 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), Jaypee Rewa Plant vs. CCE, Bhopal (2009 (7) TMI 150 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I (2011 (1) TMI 811 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad (2013 (8) TMI 601 - CESTAT MUMBAI). In view of this, the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit in respect of Mandap Keeper services is not sustainable and has to be set aside. As regards, eligibility for Cenvat credit of rent-a-cab service, this service is utilised for transportation of the employees from their residence to the factory and back, travel in connection with business meetings, visit to Government authorities and promotional activities etc. We find the question of eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of rent-a-cab service also stands decided in favour of the appellants by the judgment in cases of CCE, Bangalore III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ), CCE, Bangalore III vs. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd. (2009 (4) TMI 555 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ), CCE & ST vs. Lupin Ltd. (2012 (4) TMI 499 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), CCE, Bangalore I vs. Graphite India Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 347 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), CCE, Bangalore I vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. (2011 (9) TMI 792 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), CCE & ST, Raipur vs. HEG Ltd. (2010 (6) TMI 306 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) and CCE, Jaipur II vs. J.K. Cement Works (2009 (1) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI).- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on Mandap Keeper service and rent-a-cab service.

Analysis:

The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicles, sought Cenvat credit for service tax paid on Mandap Keeper service and rent-a-cab service utilized for various activities. The Commissioner denied the credit, leading to appeals filed by the appellant against the order. The Counsel for the appellant argued citing precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants. The learned DR defended the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and records.

Regarding the Mandap Keeper service, the Tribunal noted that it was used for organizing meetings, vehicle launches, and promotional activities. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the denial of Cenvat credit for this service. Similarly, concerning the rent-a-cab service used for employee transportation, business meetings, and official visits, the Tribunal found precedents supporting the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal referred to various judgments where similar issues were decided in favor of appellants, concluding that the impugned order was not sustainable.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeals. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.