2017 (8) TMI 541 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Telephone Services installed at residence - Car servicing - Housekeeping service - scope of input services - Held that - in the case of Vishal Pipes Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida 2015 (5) TMI 1008 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that the Telephone installed at the residence of Managing Director is covered by the definition of input service as the said Telephone is provided only for the official use and the address of the company is the residence of the Managing Director - the service tax paid on servicing of the car as well as for housekeeping service fall in the definition of input service as it is in relation to the business of the company - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of availing cenvat credit on service tax paid on Telephone Services, Car servicing, and Housekeeping service.
2. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Applicability of judicial precedents in determining eligibility for cenvat credit.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of availing cenvat credit on service tax paid on Telephone Services, Car servicing, and Housekeeping service:
The appeal was against the Commissioner's order rejecting the appellant's claim for cenvat credit on service tax paid on various services. The appellants, manufacturers of excisable goods, had wrongly availed cenvat credit on services like Telephone Services, Car servicing, and Housekeeping service. The adjudicating authority found the appellants ineligible for this credit and demanded recovery of irregular credit along with interest and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that these services were used in relation to the manufacture and clearance of final products. The Tribunal considered the arguments and previous decisions cited by the appellant, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the Telephone installed at the residence of the Managing Director, car servicing, and housekeeping services were covered under the definition of 'input service,' making the appellant eligible for cenvat credit on these services.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The crux of the matter revolved around whether the services in question fell within the ambit of 'input service' as defined in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that the services, such as Telephone Services, Car servicing, and Housekeeping service, were essential for their business operations and, therefore, qualified as 'input services.' The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents and held that these services were indeed in relation to the business of the company, making them eligible for cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. By analyzing the definition of 'input service' and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal determined that the impugned order was not sustainable in law and set it aside in favor of the appellant.

Issue 3: Applicability of judicial precedents in determining eligibility for cenvat credit:
The appellant relied on specific judicial decisions to support their argument regarding the eligibility of cenvat credit on the contested services. These decisions, including Commissioner Vs. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills, Keltech Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mangalore, and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore III, were cited to establish a legal precedent for the appellant's case. The Tribunal considered these precedents alongside the facts of the present case to reach a conclusion in favor of the appellant. By aligning with the reasoning and outcomes of the cited decisions, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was not in accordance with the legal principles established by previous judgments and, therefore, allowed the appeal based on the precedents cited by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and application of legal principles, including the interpretation of 'input service' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the consideration of relevant judicial precedents, led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appellant's appeal regarding the eligibility of cenvat credit on Telephone Services, Car servicing, and Housekeeping service.