2019 (7) TMI 562 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Rent-a-Cab Services - period Apr. 09 to Mar. 11 - HELD THAT - The issue remains settled by the decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, in the case of RAMALA SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I 2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that the word includes is used to enlarge the meaning of preceding words. The disallowance of credit is unjustified - Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of credit availed on Rent-a-Cab Services for the period prior to 01.04.2011.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the eligibility of credit availed on Rent-a-Cab Services for the period from April 2009 to March 2011. The original authority disallowed the credit, leading to the imposition of demand, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting the appeals. The appellant argued that during the period in question, the definition of "input services" included "activities relating to business." The appellant cited various decisions, such as Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU Vs. M/s. Turbo Energy Ltd., M/s. Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, and M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, to support their claim. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order.

The key issue before the Tribunal was whether the appellant was eligible for credit of service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab Services prior to 01.04.2011. The Tribunal considered the precedents cited by the appellant's counsel and noted that the word "includes" is used to enlarge the meaning of preceding words, as established in the case of M/s. Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Relying on the decisions provided by the appellant's counsel and the interpretation of the term "includes," the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of credit was unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the credit was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, holding that the credit availed on Rent-a-Cab Services for the period prior to 01.04.2011 was eligible based on the broad definition of "input services" and the interpretation of the term "includes" as per relevant legal precedents.