2017 (5) TMI 1576 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - various input services - advertisement services - car hiring services - computer maintenance for networking - bank charges - telephone, accounting/auditing/finance/legal services - manpower supply services - vehicle maintenance, building maintenance - insurance services - Held that - All the input services on which CENVAT credit has been denied have been held to be input service by various decisions cited supra and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by decisions cited - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE VERSUS MILLIPORE INDIA (P.) LTD. 2011 (4) TMI 1122 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS MARKET COMMITTEE VERSUS CCE VADODARA 2013 (4) TMI 580 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on various input services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (A) denying CENVAT credit on input services availed by the appellant. The appellant, engaged in renting immovable property services, was alleged to have availed credit on ineligible inputs like advertisement, car hiring, computer maintenance, bank charges, telephone, etc., totaling to ?4,77,482. The original authority confirmed the demand, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also dismissed it.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order misinterpreted the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and was contrary to established judicial precedents. The counsel cited several decisions, including CST vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd., CCE vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd., APMC vs. CCE, KPMG vs. CCE, and Hindustan Cocacola Beverages P. Ltd. The counsel contended that these decisions provided a broad interpretation of the term "input service," stating that any service used for providing output service and activities related to the business of the assessee qualifies as an eligible input service.

On the other hand, the learned AR supported the findings of the impugned order. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the input services for which CENVAT credit was denied had been previously considered as input services in the decisions cited by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the issue was conclusively in favor of the appellant based on the precedents cited. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (A)'s decision and ruled in favor of the appellant, acknowledging the eligibility of the input services for CENVAT credit based on established judicial interpretations and precedents.