9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 212 - AT - Service TaxCenvat Credit input services - The issue involved is whether the services such as landing parking X-ray aircraft maintenance etc. tendered by the Airports Authority of India to the Appellants are input service within the meaning of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Appellants availed a credit of its. 2, 43, 215/- as Cenvat credit during the period January 2006 to July 2006 for the Service Tax paid to the Authority held that - appellants are entitled to take the credit for the Service Tax paid by the Airports Authority of India
Issues involved:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit for services provided by Airports Authority of India to the appellant. Analysis: The appeal was filed by M/s. Force Motors Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Pune-I. The main issue revolved around whether services provided by the Airports Authority of India to the appellant, such as landing, parking, X-ray, and aircraft maintenance, qualified as 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had availed a credit of Rs. 2,43,215/- as Cenvat credit for the Service Tax paid to the Authority during a specific period. The Tribunal, in a previous Final Order, had upheld the credit claim of the appellant, stating that they were entitled to take the credit for the Service Tax paid to the Airports Authority of India. This decision was accepted by the Commissioner as well. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner had dropped proceedings against the appellant for a subsequent period based on the Tribunal's order. Following the precedent set by the Tribunal's previous order, the Member (T) held that the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable and subsequently allowed the appeal. In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant, confirming their entitlement to avail Cenvat credit for the services provided by the Airports Authority of India. The decision was based on the Tribunal's previous ruling and the subsequent actions taken by the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in alignment with the Tribunal's order.
|
