2018 (7) TMI 426 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Rent-a-cab service - Repair and Maintenance of vehicle and machineries - Insurance for vehicle and machineries - Irregular utilisation of Input Service Credit - manpower supply services - GTA Service abatement - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding on various input services and their eligibility for credit - the decisions in the case of CCEx. & ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Micro Labs Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 115 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , Infosys Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore 2014 (3) TMI 695 - CESTAT BANGALORE , and Tiger Security Services Vs. CCEx, Madurai 2009 (3) TMI 42 - CESTAT, CHENNAI were relied. There is no reason for interference with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying Cenvat Credit on input services including Rent-a-cab, Repair and Maintenance, Insurance, Manpower Supply, and GTA Service abatement.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.04.11, alleging wrongful utilization of Input Service Credit by the assessee engaged in cement manufacturing. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit of ?13,54,000/- along with penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Cenvat Credit denial on input services like Rent-a-cab, Repair and Maintenance, Insurance, Manpower Supply, and GTA Service abatement was challenged by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was no evidence that the services were used for activities not related to manufacture, thus holding that the Appellant cannot be denied the credit of the services. The Appellants were found entitled to the CENVAT credit on Manpower Supply services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and business activities.

Regarding GTA Service abatement, the Appellant submitted Certificates certifying non-availment of benefits, which were found proper and valid. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the intention of the Legislature was that abatement is admissible when conditions are fulfilled. The Appellant's entitlement to abatement stipulated by Notification No.32/04 dated 03.12.2004, in respect of GTA Service, was upheld.

The assesse relied on various decisions supporting their case, and after considering the facts and law, the Tribunal found no reason for interference with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection was disposed of.