2017 (11) TMI 2031 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Design charges-brochures catalogues - Valuation of land and factory - Services charges towards 50 years celebration - Management consultancy service - Annual Membership subscription to industry association - Repairs and Maintenance service - Photocopy services - and Hotel Accommodation charges relating to office work - HELD THAT - The admissibility of credit on the above services is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX LTU MUMBAI 2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX NOIDA 2015 (9) TMI 1037 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE. LTU BANGALORE 2011 (3) TMI 1373 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . In the aforesaid judgments the service tax paid on the various disputed services have been held to be eligible to credit being input services as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid on various services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vadodara. The main issue in the appeal was whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid on Design charges, Valuation of land and factory, Services charges towards celebration, Management consultancy service, Annual Membership subscription, Repairs and Maintenance service, Photocopy services, and Hotel Accommodation charges relating to office work. The appellant argued that the admissibility of credit on these services is supported by previous judgments, including those of the Tribunal and High Court.

The advocate for the appellant relied on judgments such as Reliance Industries Ltd. vs CCE, HCL Technologies Ltd. vs CCE, and Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE to support the admissibility of credit on the disputed services. On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that in the aforementioned judgments, the service tax paid on the disputed services was deemed eligible for credit as input services as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, allowing them to claim cenvat credit on the service tax paid on various services in question. The judgment highlighted the applicability of previous rulings to support the admissibility of such credit, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the initial order and granting relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.