2019 (5) TMI 712 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - service of renting of motor vehicle - service of General Insurance service - Manpower Supply for road construction - period from April 2016 to March 2017 - HELD THAT - This Tribunal in the case of M/S. MARVEL VINYLS LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. INDORE 2016 (11) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has considered the issue after the amendment in the definition of input service w.e.f 1.4.2011 and the Tribunal in this case has observed the interpretation of the lower authorities that motor vehicle are not capital goods for the service recipient cannot be appreciated inasmuch as motor vehicles are admittedly capital goods in terms of the Rule 2(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit on inadmissible input services including Rent-a-Cab Service.
- Interpretation of exclusion clause in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Consideration of binding judicial precedents on the issue.
- Applicability of the exclusion clause to Rent-a-Cab Service.
- Admissibility of CENVAT credit on Rent-a-Cab Service.

Analysis:

1. Denial of CENVAT Credit on Inadmissible Input Services:
The appellant, engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing, faced objections regarding CENVAT credit availed on ineligible services like renting of motor vehicles, general insurance, and manpower supply for road construction. The appellant reversed the credit and a show-cause notice was issued. The original authority confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected it. The main contention was the denial of CENVAT credit on Rent-a-Cab Service amounting to ?4,41,262.

2. Interpretation of Exclusion Clause in the Definition of Input Service:
The appellant argued that the impugned order misinterpreted the exclusion clause in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They cited judicial precedents and contended that Rent-a-Cab Service was used for business purposes, thus not warranting suppression allegations. The appellant challenged the denial of CENVAT credit specifically on Rent-a-Cab Service, emphasizing non-utilization of the credit.

3. Consideration of Binding Judicial Precedents:
The AR defended the impugned order, citing the exclusion of Rent-a-Cab Service from the definition of 'input service' effective from April 1, 2011. Several decisions were relied upon to support this argument, highlighting the exclusion of renting motor vehicles.

4. Applicability of Exclusion Clause to Rent-a-Cab Service:
The Tribunal examined various decisions and settled the issue by referencing cases like Marvel Vinyls Ltd. vs. CCE, emphasizing the interpretation of the exclusion clause concerning motor vehicles not classified as capital goods. The Tribunal observed that the denial of CENVAT credit on Rent-a-Cab Service was unsustainable in law, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

5. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Rent-a-Cab Service:
Following the precedent set by Marvel Vinyls Ltd. vs. CCE, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of CENVAT credit on Rent-a-Cab Service was not legally justified. The order was pronounced on 09/05/2019, allowing the appellant's appeal and providing consequential relief.