2017 (3) TMI 857 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Business Auxiliary Service/Business Support Service - Insurance Auxiliary Service - Outdoor Catering Service - Construction Service - Held that - In the relevant period, the definition of Input Services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, in the inclusive part, input services used in relation to business such as accounting, auditing, training etc. are specifically included. The definition is itself very wide to include the services used by the manufacturer by directly/indirectly in relation to final product and clearance of final product - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against allowing input service credit on 'Rent a cab service'
- Appeal against denial of benefit of various services including Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service, Insurance Auxiliary Service, Outdoor Catering Service, and Construction Service

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing input service credit on 'Rent a cab service' used for ferrying employees. The Revenue argued that the issue had already been decided in the party's own case by the Tribunal, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument, stating that since the issue was covered in favor of the party in the previous Tribunal order, the Revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed.

2. The second issue pertains to the appellants appealing against the denial of benefits related to various services such as Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service, Insurance Auxiliary Service, Outdoor Catering Service, and Construction Service. The appellants had used these services for activities like factory building construction, consultancy services, insurance surveyor charges, and staff food bills. The Tribunal analyzed each service individually and found that the services fell within the definition of 'Input Services' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. to support the appellants' entitlement to Cenvat Credit for these services. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal No. E/926/2011-EX[SM] filed by the department, as the issue was already decided in favor of the party in a previous Tribunal order. On the other hand, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal No. E/1107/2011-EX[SM] filed by the appellants, granting them the benefit of Cenvat Credit for the services in question. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court, finalizing the decision on both appeals.