9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 217 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - outdoor catering service - outward transportation service - rent-a-cab service. Outdoor catering service - N/N. 03/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 - Held that - Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd Vs. CCE, 2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE has held that outdoor catering service is not an input service after the amendment from 01.04.2011 - denial of credit upheld. Freight outward charges - denial on the ground that the Joint Commissioner found that the invoices submitted on the credit was availed on transportation of export cargo up to the place of destination i.e. outside Indian Territory - Held that - The case of the appellant is that he has claimed outward transportation up to the Port of export and has not claimed beyond the Port of loading and the Commissioner (A) has wrongly relied upon the Order-in-Original which is based upon the observation of the Joint Commissioner that in the invoices, the appellant has claimed CENVAT credit on transportation up to the place of destination whereas, in fact, the appellant has only claimed CENVAT credit on transportation up to the Port which is a place of removal in case of export - case needs to be remanded back to the original authority for the purpose of verifying whether the appellant has claimed CENVAT credit on freight outward up to the place of the Port or beyond. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on input services like outdoor catering, rent-a-cab service, and outward transportation. 2. Interpretation of the definition of input service under Rule 2(1) of CCR. 3. Applicability of statutory requirements to determine input services. 4. Verification process for availed CENVAT credit. 5. Remand of the matter to the original authority for further verification. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT credit on input services The Commissioner denied CENVAT credit on outdoor catering and rent-a-cab services based on specific exclusions from the definition of input service under Rule 2(1) of CCR. The Tribunal's decision in a related case supported this denial. Furthermore, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that outdoor catering service is not an input service post-amendment from 01.04.2011. The denial of credit on rent-a-cab service was also upheld due to specific exclusion post-amendment. Issue 2: Interpretation of the definition of input service The denial of CENVAT credit was based on amendments in the definition of input service, specifically excluding outdoor catering and rent-a-cab services. The Commissioner's decision was supported by legal precedents and interpretations of the law by the Tribunal. The case highlighted the importance of understanding the evolving definition of input service and its implications on credit availment. Issue 3: Applicability of statutory requirements The appellant argued that outdoor catering and rent-a-cab services were used as per statutory requirements and should be considered as input services. The appellant emphasized that these services were essential for boosting employee energy and increasing manufacturing capacity. However, the Commissioner's decision was based on the specific exclusions under the law, leading to the denial of CENVAT credit. Issue 4: Verification process for availed CENVAT credit The verification process for availed CENVAT credit was crucial in determining the eligibility of the appellant for credits on various input services. The appellant's submission regarding the verification process and reliance on sample copies of invoices was considered during the proceedings. The Commissioner's decision to deny credit was based on the findings of the verification process and legal provisions governing credit availment. Issue 5: Remand of the matter for further verification The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the original authority for further verification regarding the availed CENVAT credit on outward transportation. The discrepancy in the claimed credit up to the Port of export versus beyond the Port of loading necessitated a detailed examination. The remand was deemed necessary to ensure a thorough verification process and compliance with the principles of natural justice. Overall, the appeal was partly allowed through remand, with the denial of CENVAT credit on catering service and rent-a-cab service upheld, and the matter regarding outward transportation service remanded to the original authority for further verification and reasoned decision-making.
|
