2016 (10) TMI 1235 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - rent-a-cab, which is used for bringing the employees from the residence to the factory - insurance paid on plant, machinery and equipments - insurance paid on the goods exported - Held that - Tribunal vide its decision in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow 2012 (12) TMI 265 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has held that insurance paid on plant, machinery and equipment has to be held as input service. Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-III, COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P.) LTD. 2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that service tax paid on all services utilised directly or indirectly in or in relation to final product is eligible for Cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Availability of cenvat credit on rent-a-cab, insurance on plant, machinery, equipment, and goods exported.

In the judgment delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, the dispute revolved around the availability of cenvat credit on rent-a-cab, insurance on plant, machinery, equipment, and goods exported by the appellant. The Member (Judicial) noted that various decisions favored the assessee on these issues, citing cases such as Titan Industries Vs. CCE, Bangalore-I and CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India. The Tribunal's decision in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow established that insurance on plant, machinery, and equipment should be considered an input service. Additionally, the High Court of Bombay in CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cements Ltd. emphasized the nexus between catering services and the manufacture of the final product for cenvatable input service eligibility. The High Court of Karnataka in CCE&ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Micro Labs Ltd. held that service tax on all services directly or indirectly related to the final product qualifies for Cenvat credit. Moreover, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Ambuja Cements Vs. Union of India confirmed the admissibility of insurance for cenvat credit.

The judgment concluded that since all the issues had been decisively settled in favor of the appellant based on previous legal precedents, there was no justification to uphold the impugned order. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.