2016 (5) TMI 1001 - AT - Service Tax

Availment of Cenvat credit - Telephone/mobile phone and courier service - period involved is August 2013 to March 2014 - Held that - the issue stands already decided by this Bench in the appellant s own case reported in 2016 (5) TMI 906 - CESTAT CHENNAI , therefore, by following the same the appellants are entitled to credit on telephone/mobile phone and courier services for the subsequent period also. Hence, the demand and penalty is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit on telephone/mobile phone and courier services for a specific period.
- Adjudication by the authority and appeal to Commissioner (Appeals).
- Interpretation of input service definition under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
- Applicability of previous judgments to the current case.
- Decision on eligibility of credit for telephone/mobile phone, courier services, and construction and repair services for staff quarters.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of Cenvat credit to a cement manufacturing company for availing credit on telephone/mobile phone and courier services. The Adjudicating authority had initially denied the credit, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants contended that a similar issue had been decided in their favor in an earlier case before the same Bench. The key argument was based on the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which includes services used directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products. The appellants had used courier services for official communications related to manufacturing activities, and telephone/mobile services within their factory premises. They also argued that repair services for staff quarters were essential for staff welfare and thus eligible for credit.

The judgment referred to a previous case involving Servall Engineering Works Pvt Ltd, where services related to cell phones and courier agencies were deemed eligible for credit. The Bench found this precedent applicable to the current case and allowed the credit for telephone/mobile phone and courier services. The decision was based on the use of these services for manufacturing and commercial activities. As a result, the demand and penalty were set aside for these services. Regarding repair and maintenance services for staff quarters, the issue was considered interpretative, and the appellants were deemed to have acted under a bona fide belief. Therefore, the penalty for this service was also set aside.

Ultimately, the Bench upheld the appellants' entitlement to credit on telephone/mobile phone and courier services for the subsequent period, following the same ratio and judicial discipline as in the previous case. Consequently, the demand and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.