2021 (10) TMI 1336 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Business Auxiliary Service - GTA - Rent-a -cab - Insurance Agency Service - Courier Service - Renting of Immovable Service - Maintenance Repair Service - and Manpower Supply Service - HELD THAT - The appellant in respect of cenvat credit on Rent-a Cab, Insurance Agency Service and Renting of Immovable Service was admittedly reversed for the period 01.04.11 onward. Therefore, the Cenvat Credit reversed by the appellant is maintained. As regard other services all these services have been allowed as input services - all the above services used by the appellant for their overall business activity are admissible input service therefore, the credit in respect of the aforesaid services are allowed except credit reversed by the appellant. Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) 2019 (2) TMI 1487 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD for GTS Service, M/S. FOXTEQ SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE 2019 (5) TMI 375 - CESTAT CHENNAI for Business Auxiliary service and M/S UNICURE INDIA LTD. VERSUS C.C.,C.E. S.T., NOIDA 2017 (3) TMI 706 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD for manpower services. Penalties - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the overall facts of the cases, there is no malafide on the part of the appellant, therefore the penalties are also set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Entitlement of cenvat credit on various services
- Reversal of cenvat credit on specific services
- Interpretation of judgments allowing input services

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, delivered by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. Ramesh Nair, addresses the issue of the appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit on different services. The appellant had reversed cenvat credit on Rent-a Cab, Insurance Agency Service, and Renting of Immovable Service from 01.04.11 onwards, which was maintained. However, the cenvat credit on other services like GTA Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Courier Service, Maintenance & Repair Service, and Manpower Supply Service was disputed. The Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the admissibility of these services as input services for the appellant's business activities.

Regarding GTA Service, judgments such as M/s. Ultratech Cements Limited vs. CCE, Kutch and M/s. Sanghi Industries Limited vs. CCE, Kutch were cited, supporting the allowance of cenvat credit. Similarly, for Business Auxiliary Service, the case of Foxteq Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of GST & C. Ex., Chennai was referenced. The combination of Business Auxiliary and Courier Services was supported by the judgment in Raymond UCO Denim Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur. Maintenance & Repair Service was validated through the case of Lucas TVS Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai. Lastly, for Manpower Services, multiple judgments were cited, establishing the admissibility of these services as input services.

Based on the above precedents, it was concluded that all the services used by the appellant for their business activities were admissible input services. Therefore, the cenvat credit for these services, except for the reversed credits, was allowed. Additionally, considering the lack of malafide intent on the appellant's part, the penalties were set aside. Consequently, the impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeals were partly allowed as per the terms outlined in the judgment.