2014 (3) TMI 36 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit of service tax - Brokerage, air travel booking, transportation for employees - Held that - The word business , is as has often been said, one of the wide import and in fiscal statutes, it must be construed in a broad rather than a restricted sense . The words relating to further widen the scope of the expression activities relating to business . On the aforesaid ruling, the Commissioner (Appeals) found a prima facie strong case in favour of the assessee and accordingly allowed the credit of service tax paid on the input services - there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Following decision of COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on various input services such as brokerage, air travel booking, and transportation for employees.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed appeals challenging the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur's orders allowing the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on specific input services. The respondent, a synthetic yarn manufacturer, availed input services like brokerage, air travel booking, and luxury taxi booking, paying service tax on the invoices. The disallowed credit was contested before the Commissioner (Appeals), citing precedents like M/s Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune III, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the term "business" in fiscal statutes. The Commissioner (Appeals) found a strong case for the assessee based on the cited rulings and allowed the credit. Additionally, the assessee referred to their own case and other judgments, supporting the availability of credit for services like brokerage, transport, and air travel.

The ld. AR for the Revenue supported the Order-in-Original and requested the allowance of Revenue's appeals. After examining the arguments and considering the Commissioner (Appeals)'s clear findings and the precedents cited by the assessee, the judge, Anil Choudhary, concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had made no errors. Consequently, the judge upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was pronounced in court, affirming the allowance of Cenvat Credit on the disputed input services and rejecting the Revenue's appeals.