2017 (9) TMI 1876 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Air Travel Agent Service - Tour Operator s Service - Courier Service - Cleaning Service - Life Insurance of the employees - Mandap Keeper Service - GTA Service - HELD THAT - The respective services have been held to be Input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 in various services and accordingly the service tax paid on these services is admissible to credit. However in the case of credit of service tax paid on the GTA Service it is necessary to ascertain the from the condition of sale whether the place of removal is at the factory or at customer s premises before allowing the credit - reliance can be placed in the case of Principal Commissioner vs. Essar Oil Ltd 2015 (12) TMI 1062 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT Haldyn Glass Ltd. Ors. Vs. C.C.E S.T - Vadodara-II 2017 (8) TMI 1217 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and Birla Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal 2014 (1) TMI 148 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . For ascertain the said fact the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of credit on various services under the definition of 'Input Service' as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004.
2. Dispute regarding credit availed on service tax paid against Commission Agent's Service.
3. Necessity to ascertain the place of removal for credit on GTA Service.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original (OIA) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax-Vadodara-II, denying credit on certain services under the definition of 'Input Service' as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The appellant's advocate argued that except for the credit availed on the service tax paid against Commission Agent's Service, they contested the denial of credit on various other services. The advocate referred to several judgments supporting their claim that the disputed services should be considered 'input services.' The Advocate for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Regarding the admissibility of credit on the disputed services, the Member (Judicial) noted that the respective services have been held to be 'Input service' as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 in the cited judgments. Therefore, the service tax paid on these services is deemed admissible for credit. However, concerning the credit of service tax paid on the GTA Service, the Member highlighted the necessity to determine the place of removal from the condition of sale before allowing the credit. As a result, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to ascertain this fact. Consequently, the impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeals were disposed of based on the above considerations. The judgment was pronounced in court by the Member (Judicial).