Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 987 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit demo cars capital goods input Held that - nothing is demonstrated today that a demo car falls in any of the Chapters dealing with capital goods. Therefore, the claim of capital goods fails. Further, plea of input is inconceivable for the reason that this does not aid in providing output service demo cars neither capital goods nor input CENVAT credit not available. Construction service output service Held that - Appellant has provided services on repair and renewal of the vehicle and has been taxed under the Finance Act, 1994 as authorized service station. There is also nothing on record to show that the service station can work without a roof and structure. Nothing brought out as to the use of the building for a purpose other than the service centre of the appellant - CENVAT credit not denied. Imposition of penalty Held that - interpretation of law involved and it is beyond the reach of a common man to interpret law as the legislature and court interprets penalty waived. Decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Claim of CENVAT credit on a demo car used for displaying purposes. 2. Denial of CENVAT credit on the construction service for a service centre shed. Analysis: 1. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit on a demo car used for attracting customers, contending it as a capital good or an input for the service center. The Revenue opposed, stating a demo car does not fall under capital goods or inputs category. The Tribunal found the demo car did not qualify as capital goods or an input for providing output service. Therefore, the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on the excise duty paid for the demo car was denied. 2. Regarding the construction service for the service center shed, the Revenue argued there was no nexus to the output service provided. However, the appellant demonstrated the necessity of the construction for operating an authorized service station. The Tribunal noted that the service station's operation required a roof and structure, and the construction was essential for providing authorized services. Consequently, the appellant was deemed entitled to CENVAT credit for the input service related to the construction of the service center. The appeal was allowed on this limited ground. 3. The Tribunal waived the penalty on both aspects, considering the involvement of legal interpretation beyond a common man's reach. The decision highlighted the complexity of legal interpretation as per legislative and judicial standards. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed only concerning the CENVAT credit related to the construction service for the service center shed.
|