2017 (9) TMI 505 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - input services - Custom House Agents service - Sale Commission - Payment Collection from Government Departments - Held that - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. RAIPUR Versus BHILAI AUXILIARY INDUSTRIES 2008 (12) TMI 134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that definition of input service as given in Rule 2(1) of CCR 2004 covers in addition to the services used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture other service also including the services used in relation to advertisement or sales promotion - the said services are covered under input services - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 87-ST/GZB/2011-12 dated 30/05/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of certain services as input services for availing Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue contended that Custom House Agents, Sale Commission, and Payment Collection from Government Departments were not covered under input services. The Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on specific case laws to support their decision. The Revenue did not challenge the applicability of these case laws to the present case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide any grounds as to why the decisions of the Tribunal in the cited case laws were not applicable in the present matter. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it. The respondents were granted consequential relief as per the law. The cross-objection was also disposed of in the same order.

In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal highlighted that the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had based their decisions on specific case laws, including CCE Versus Bhilai Auxiliary Services, Nav Bharat Tubes Ltd. Versus CCE Jaipur, Adani Pharmachem Versus CCD, and CCE Versus Rilex Rings (P) Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue did not challenge the applicability of these case laws to the present case. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal granted the respondents consequential relief in accordance with the law.