2022 (5) TMI 1114 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Hotel Accommodation Service - Air Travel Agent Service - HELD THAT - Hotel Accommodation Service and Air Travel Agent Service are admissible input services. Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. UNIQUE CHEMICALS VERSUS C.C.E. S.T., VADODRA-II 2019 (9) TMI 1137 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and INOX INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-II 2021 (7) TMI 551 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that 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 issue is no longer res-Integra as the same has been decided in the favour of the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit for Hotel Accommodation Service and Air Travel Agent Service.

Analysis:
The appellant sought Cenvat credit for input services, specifically Hotel Accommodation Service and Air Travel Agent Service. The appellant's counsel referenced various judgments, including one from the same Tribunal in the appellant's own case, where credit for the same services was allowed. The revenue, represented by the Superintendent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions and records, noting the judgments relied upon by the appellant, which established the admissibility of Hotel Accommodation Service and Air Travel Agent Service as input services.

The Member highlighted that the appellant's case was previously adjudicated by the Tribunal, where it was held that the disputed services were indeed 'input services' as defined under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The judgment cited cases where similar services were considered eligible for credit. The revenue failed to present any contradictory judgments. The Member concluded that based on the precedents and lack of contrary evidence from the revenue, the impugned order was devoid of merit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief as per the law.

In light of the Tribunal's previous decision in the appellant's favor, the issue regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit for Hotel Accommodation Service and Air Travel Agent Service was no longer open for debate. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.