2018 (4) TMI 1102 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - service tax paid on various services availed by them before the registration of their Unit - Held that - in the case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Service Tax 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - Rent-a Cab Services and Air Travel Services, utilised by the appellant for their employees travel purposes - Held that - for the period subsequent to the one involved in the present appeal Commissioner (Appeals) has extended the benefit to assessee in the case of M/s. SCIO inspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on services availed before unit registration.
2. Entitlement to credit for Rent-a-Cab and Air Travel Services used for employee travel purposes.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on services availed before the registration of the appellant's unit. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai III Vs CESTAT and M/s. SCIOinspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to the credit for services availed prior to registration. This decision aligns with the legal interpretation established by the Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court in previous cases.

2. The second issue involves the entitlement to credit for Rent-a-Cab and Air Travel Services utilized by the appellant for their employees' travel purposes. The Tribunal cited various decisions, including the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and CESTAT reported in 2016 and M/s. Delphi Automotive Systems P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida reported in 2015. Additionally, it was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had extended the benefit to the assessee in a similar case for a subsequent period. Taking these factors into consideration, the Tribunal set aside the demands confirmed against the appellant and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai addressed the denial of Cenvat credit for services availed before unit registration and the entitlement to credit for specific services used for employee travel purposes. The decision was based on established legal precedents and interpretations, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and providing relief from the confirmed demands.