9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 79 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of Cenvat credit on Tour Operators Service used for bringing staff to the factory - Held that - This Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the prior period has allowed the assessee s appeal. Also find that the adjudicating authority in his findings has discussed the entire issue in detail and discussed the interpretation of the term activities relating to business and held that the input services availed by the appellant assessee for tour operator s service on which cenvat credit has been claimed is in relation to the manufacture of the final products. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Reported in (2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) and the decision of this Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit on Tour Operators Service for staff transportation to the factory. Analysis: The appeal involved the denial of Cenvat credit on Tour Operators Service used to transport staff to the factory. Two Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant for different periods. The appellant's counsel argued that the services were closely related to the manufacture of final products and referred to relevant case laws to support their claim. The counsel also highlighted that the period in question was before a specific amendment date. On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that the services did not have a direct or indirect nexus to the manufacture of excisable goods and cited a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case for the appellant, the appeal was allowed for a similar issue. The adjudicating authority's detailed discussion supported the appellant's claim that the input services were related to manufacturing. Following the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Tribunal's decision, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
