2010 (4) TMI 176 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit- input services- whether outward transportation, transit insurance of goods, motor vehicle insurance and tyre retreading charges were input services ? Held that- They relate only to motor vehicle insurance and tyre retreading charges which have been held to be input service and which finding is not challenged by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether outward transportation, transit insurance of goods, motor vehicle insurance, and tyre retreading charges qualify as 'input services' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Outward Transportation and Transit Insurance as 'Input Services':
The case involved 11 Orders-in-Original addressing the classification of various services as 'input services' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of considering outward transportation and transit insurance of goods as 'input services.' This decision was challenged by the Revenue through Appeal Nos. ST/18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23/2010. The Committee of Commissioners reviewed the appellate orders and directed the filing of appeals against the decisions regarding outward transportation and transit insurance. The Appeals Tribunal adjourned the decision on these issues pending the outcome of a related case in the Karnataka High Court.

2. Motor Vehicle Insurance and Tyre Retreading Charges as 'Input Services':
The remaining five appeals, ST/48, 49, 50, 51 & 52/2010, did not concern outward transportation or transit insurance. These appeals focused on the classification of motor vehicle insurance and tyre retreading charges as 'input services.' The Tribunal noted that these services had been held to be 'input services,' a decision not contested by the Revenue. Consequently, these five appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

3. Review of Appellate Orders and Committee's Decision:
The Committee of Commissioners reviewed the Orders-in-Appeal and opined that the appellate authority's classification of outward transportation and transit insurance as 'input services' was not legally sound. Consequently, appeals were filed against these specific aspects of the appellate orders. The issue was further complicated by the pending decision of the Karnataka High Court in a related case.

4. Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the contentious issue of classifying certain services as 'input services' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. While the Tribunal awaited the decision of the Karnataka High Court on outward transportation, the classification of motor vehicle insurance and tyre retreading charges as 'input services' remained undisputed. The legal battle primarily revolved around the interpretation and application of the rules governing input services in the context of the specific services provided by the parties involved.

This comprehensive analysis encapsulates the key legal issues, decisions, and procedural steps outlined in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai.