2018 (12) TMI 779 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - various input services - Telephone Services - GTA/Courier Services - Security Services - Works Contract Services - ISD invoices - Vehicle Maintenance Services - Consultancy Services - Catering Services/Tea expenses - Held that - The issues have been decided at various levels and the same are more or less settled which is also applicable to the period after 01.04.2011 - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against denial of CENVAT Credit on input services including Telephone Service, GTA, Security Service, ISD Invoices, Works Contract Service, Consultancy Service, Vehicle Maintenance Service, and Catering Service.

Analysis:

1. Telephone Service: The appellant argued that CENVAT Credit on Telephone Service is eligible as per Rule 2(l) for carrying out promotional activities of finished goods. Citing precedents like C.C.E., S.T. & Cus., Bangalore-II Vs. J. K. Fabrics, the appellant contended for eligibility.

2. GTA/Courier Service: The appellant reversed CENVAT Credit on outward freight, relying on decisions like Commissioner of C.Ex., Belgaum Vs. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. to support their case.

3. Security Services: The appellant justified availing security services to protect goods stored at a specific unit, citing cases like Commr. of C.Ex. & Cus., Guntur Vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

4. Works Contract: The appellant argued for eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Works Contract for maintenance works, citing cases like UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry.

5. ISD Invoices: The Revenue contended that services on ISD invoices were not eligible as input services. The appellant argued for eligibility under Rule 7 of CCR, citing cases like Castrol India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.,Vapi.

6. Vehicle Maintenance Service: The appellant supported availing CENVAT Credit on maintenance of vehicles used for transportation, citing cases like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.,C. & S.T., Visakhapatnam.

7. Consultancy Services: The appellant argued for eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Civil Consultancy Services, citing cases like Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Bangalore.

8. Catering Services/Tea Expenses: The appellant justified CENVAT Credit for catering services for employees during office hours, citing cases like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Visakhapatnam-I.

The Tribunal found that the issues were settled and allowed the appeals based on judicial precedents applicable post-01.04.2011, granting consequential benefits as per law. The judgment was pronounced on 07.12.2018.