9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1160 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - mobile phone services - Outward Transport Services - Held that - Credit on GTA allowed - So far as the Cenvat credit claim on availing of mobile phone services is concerned, there is no material on record to suggest that the mobile phones were no way related to the manufacture or in relation to manufacture or for the activities permitted by Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, assessee succeeds on this count. So far as denial of Cenvat credit on the services used with the documents addressed to Head Office is concerned, there appears no material to suggest that particular services was not used for the purpose stated in Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the claim thereon is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of credit on outward transportation. 2. Denial of Cenvat credit on mobile phone services. 3. Denial of Cenvat credit on documents showing the payment of tax addressed to the Head Office. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Credit on Outward Transportation: The Appellate Tribunal addressed the denial of Cenvat credit for service tax paid on outward transportation services. The judgment referenced the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs M/s. Borg Warner Morse Tec. Murugappa Pvt. Ltd. and CESTAT, Chennai, which clarified that services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal should be treated as an input service under Rule 2(l)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'input service' includes services used directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products and their clearance from the place of removal. The Tribunal emphasized that transportation services are implicitly included within this definition, as they are essential for delivering the final product to the customer. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for Cenvat credit on outward transportation, aligning with the broader interpretation of 'input service' prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2008. 2. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Mobile Phone Services: The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the mobile phone services were unrelated to the manufacturing process or other activities permitted under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the Cenvat credit claim on mobile phone services. The decision was based on the absence of material evidence disqualifying the mobile phone services from being considered as input services. 3. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Documents Addressed to Head Office: Regarding the denial of Cenvat credit on services used, with documents addressed to the Head Office, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to suggest that these services were not used for purposes outlined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal allowed the claim, indicating that the services were indeed used for relevant activities, thereby qualifying for Cenvat credit. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessee, confirming the entitlement to Cenvat credit on outward transportation, mobile phone services, and services documented to the Head Office. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the broader interpretation of 'input service' and the legitimacy of the claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court.
|
