2022 (11) TMI 94 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Input services - Foreign travel services used for air travel agencies services for their staff or employee to travel abroad for business purpose - scope of the phrase 'personal use or consumption' - after 01.04.2011 the phrase activities relating to business was deleted from the inclusive clause of the input service definition and Rule 2(1)(ii)(C) specifically excluded travel benefit extended to employee for personal use. HELD THAT - The issue involved has been determined by the Tribunal in ROHA DYECHEM PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIGAD 2017 (9) TMI 1995 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that Admittedly, the foreign travel expenses were incurred for staff to travel abroad for business purposes. Appellant is a manufacturer and the business of manufacturing does not preclude activities relating to manufacture outside the country. Likewise, the courier was entrusted with dispatch of documents and correspondence from the office of the appellant which can be presumed to have been in connection with its principal activity. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that research development could have been in connection with anything other than manufacture. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT credit for foreign travel services due to lack of evidence for official use.
2. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. MKK/96/RGD APP/2019-20 dated 31.05.2019 based on delay in filing.

Issue 1: Disallowance of CENVAT credit for foreign travel services
The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed CENVAT credit for foreign travel services, stating that the services were not shown to be used for official business purposes after 01.04.2011. The inclusive clause of the input service definition and Rule 2(1)(ii)(C) excluded travel benefits for personal use. Lack of evidence regarding official use led to the denial of credit for personal consumption. The appellant's contention that the services were used for air ticket booking for business purposes was not substantiated, resulting in the disallowance of the credit.

Issue 2: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal based on delay in filing
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the first appellate authority due to a delay in filing the appeal. The appellant explained the delay attributing it to transit impediments and lack of awareness about the requirement for a separate condonation plea. The Tribunal found the explanation acceptable and set aside the impugned order, instructing the appellant to file a condonation plea within 30 days. The first appellate authority was directed to consider the application and dispose of the appeal on merits. The Tribunal noted that there was no reasonable ground to assume that condonation would not have been sought if the delay had been known, leading to the restoration of the appeal for further consideration.

In a subsequent review of the case, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments in the appellant's favor regarding similar issues. The Tribunal held that the foreign travel expenses were incurred for business purposes, making the appellant eligible for CENVAT credit. The credit availed for services related to manufacturing activities was deemed rightful, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal, based on the favorable decisions in the appellant's own cases, found no merits in the impugned order and allowed the appeal, pronouncing the order in the open court.