2019 (9) TMI 1137 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Input services - Mandap Keeper Service - Hotel Accommodation Service - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the Hotel Accommodation Service was used by the appellant for hotel stay of staff of the appellants who travelled outside for business purpose - As regard Mandap Keeper service the same is used for arranging the business conference which is a necessity for running the business. Therefore both the services are directly used for conducting the business of the appellant. The expenditure expenses of these services are borne by appellant and booked in their books of account - Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Mandap Keeper Service and Hotel Accommodation Service.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that both services were used directly for the business purpose of lodging employees and organizing business conferences. Citing various judgments, the appellant contended that the services were essential for conducting business. The Tribunal noted that the expenses for these services were borne by the appellant and recorded in their books of account. Referring to a previous case involving the appellant's sister unit, where Cenvat Credit for Mandap Keeper Service was allowed, the Tribunal concluded that the credit for both services was admissible.

Regarding Hotel Stay, the Tribunal referenced a case involving another company where Cenvat Credit was permitted. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the multiple judgments presented by the appellant in support of their case. Thus, the Tribunal found the Cenvat Credit for Hotel Accommodation and Mandap Keeper service to be admissible.

In contrast, the Revenue representative relied on judgments related to Outdoor catering services primarily for personal use, which were deemed irrelevant to the present case. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of those cases from the current scenario, where the services were directly linked to the business activities of the appellant.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the Cenvat Credit for both services was admissible based on their direct utilization for conducting the business operations of the appellant.