9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 828 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Tour Operator/Rent-a-Cab Service - period from 31.07.2005 to 31.01.2008 - Held that - The issue relating to Rent-a-Cab Service has already been addressed to and decided, for the period prior to 01.04.2011, by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.C.E. & S.T., LTU, Chennai Vs. M/s. Turbo Energy Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 632 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that the Cenvat Credit has been properly availed in respect of outdoor catering services and rent-a-cab services - demand for the period up to 01.04.2011 set aside. For the subsequent period i.e, up to 30.11.2011 - Held that - The Ld. Advocate has taken a specific contention that there was no service availed post 01.04.2011 and that only the invoice was raised and the credit was availed subsequently. This requires factual verification. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
Issues:
Challenge to denial of CENVAT Credit on Tour Operator/Rent-a-Cab Service. Analysis: The appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal and confirming the finding that the input service is not eligible under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The key issue revolves around the denial of CENVAT Credit on Tour Operator/Rent-a-Cab Service for the period from 31.07.2005 to 31.01.2008. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue is covered by previous decisions up to 01.04.2011, citing various higher forum decisions and the Order of the Bench. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing that the Rent-a-Cab facilities were used for outward transport services and did not relate to the manufacturing activity of the appellant. The Revenue further contended that the appellant failed to prove that it did not recover any amount for the service from its employees. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, reviewed the documents, and analyzed the case law presented by the appellant's counsel. Referring to a decision by the jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal found that the issue regarding Rent-a-Cab Service had already been addressed and decided for the period before 01.04.2011. The High Court's observations highlighted the direct relation of the service to the manufacturing activity and its necessity for ensuring the workforce's timely presence at the workplace. Based on this, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order concerning the period up to 01.04.2011. However, for the subsequent period up to 30.11.2011, the Tribunal noted the appellant's specific contention that no service was availed post 01.04.2011, and only the invoice was raised with credit availed later. This assertion required factual verification, leading the Tribunal to remit the issue back to the adjudicating authority for verification. The Tribunal directed the appellant to establish the case regarding the service post 01.04.2011, and if found correct, instructed the authority to allow the benefit accordingly. The judgment was pronounced on 11.10.2018.
|
