2016 (12) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit for the period from April 2007 to December 2011 - authorized service station service - outdoor catering service - mandap keeper service - convention service - Held that - the subject services were not availed for personal consumption of an employee but for the appellant organization. It is also not disputed that the invoices were raised in the name of appellant and not in the name of any employee. Further, the department has not adduced any evidence to establish that the subject services were availed for the personal consumption of any employee of the appellant organization. The issue whether after 01.04.2011 credit is admissible on outdoor catering service/ mandap keeper service and convention service was analysed by the Tribunal and has been held in favour of the assessee in the case of M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Vs CCE & ST, LTU, Mumbai 2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI . The appellants are eligible for credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT Credit on input services - Authorized service station service, outdoor catering service, mandap keeper service, convention service for the period from April 2007 to December 2011.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing, were issued a show cause notice proposing to deny CENVAT Credit of &8377;6,08,415 availed on input services. The original authority confirmed the disallowance, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the services were essential for their manufacturing business, citing relevant judgments supporting their claim. The department contended that certain services were not eligible for credit as they were for extending courtesy and hospitality. The Tribunal noted that pre-2011, the definition of input service was broader, encompassing business-related activities. The appellant, a Government undertaking, clarified the purpose of availing services post-2011 to enhance efficiency and customer base. The Tribunal found no evidence of personal consumption and ruled in favor of the appellants based on a previous judgment in a similar case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the appellants eligible for credit on the disputed input services. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential reliefs if any.