9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 13 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - Insurance Service - Pest Control Service - Rent-a-Cab Service - Held that - the service tax paid on Pest Control Service falls in the definition of input service because the Pest Control Service is essential for maintaining the clean environment in a particular factory and to protect the properties of the company - the issue of availment of credit on Insurance Service and Rent-a-Cab Service has been settled in favour of the appellant in their own case by this Tribunal in SKF Technologies (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2013 (12) TMI 329 - CESTAT BANGALORE - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against denial of cenvat credit for service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab service, Insurance Service, and Pest Control Service. Analysis: The appeals were filed against the order denying cenvat credit for service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab service, Insurance Service, and Pest Control Service. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the appellants were not eligible for cenvat credit for these services. The appellants, manufacturers of oil seals, were availing cenvat credit as per Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Department noticed that the appellants had availed cenvat credit on services not related to manufacturing activity. The original authority passed the Order-in-Original, leading to the appeals before the Commissioner. The services in dispute were Insurance Service, Pest Control Service, and Rent-a-Cab & Pest Control Services for specific periods. The appellant argued that they were entitled to cenvat credit for service tax paid on these services as they were related to manufacturing activity. The appellant cited judicial precedents and argued that the services fell under the definition of 'input services.' The learned counsel contended that denial of cenvat credit was unjustified, citing specific cases and legal provisions to support their claim. The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order was contrary to the law and binding judicial precedents. They claimed that the service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab Service, Employees Health Insurance, and Pest Control Service was availed after 01.04.2011 but pertained to services utilized before that date. They asserted that denial of cenvat credit for these services was unwarranted. The counsel highlighted that the Insurance Service and Pest Control Service were essential for maintaining a clean environment in the factory and protecting company properties. They relied on previous tribunal decisions and legal provisions to support their arguments. The appellant's position was supported by judicial precedents and legal principles, emphasizing the eligibility of the services in question for cenvat credit. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both parties and considering the submissions along with the cited judgments, concluded that the issue favored the appellant. The Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered in favor of the appellant by the decisions cited and allowed all three appeals with any consequential relief. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 12/04/2017. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals indicates a favorable outcome for the appellant regarding the denial of cenvat credit for the specified services.
|
