2015 (10) TMI 2225 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - cenvat credit - Held that - In view of assessee s own previous order we condone the delay and after allowing the stay petition, dispose of the appeal itself by following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case. Accordingly, the CENVAT credit on out-door travel services and mobile phone services is allowed and in respect of canteen services, the same is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in terms of the directions contained in the first order - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeals, eligibility for CENVAT credit on canteen services, out-door travel services, and mobile phone services

Delay in filing appeals:
Two appeals were filed against the same impugned order with a delay of 29 days. The first appeal, Appeal No E/2072/2011-SM, was disposed of by condoning the delay of 29 days. The Tribunal observed that CENVAT Credit on canteen services, out-door travel services, and mobile phone services had been denied for the period from January 2008 to June 2009. The Tribunal referred to precedent decisions in similar cases to support the appellant's eligibility for the benefit of CENVAT credit. However, in the case of canteen services, where subsidized services were provided, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the amount paid by employees towards the canteen services.

Eligibility for CENVAT credit on canteen services, out-door travel services, and mobile phone services:
The Tribunal considered the denial of CENVAT Credit on canteen services, out-door travel services, and mobile phone services. It cited precedent decisions in cases related to these services, such as M/s SKF Technologies (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Bangalore, Welspun Maxsteel Ltd. Vs CCE, and Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE Jaipur, to support the appellant's eligibility for CENVAT credit. The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of CENVAT credit on out-door travel services and mobile phone services. However, in the case of canteen services, due to the provision of subsidized services, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further verification and decision.

Overall, the Tribunal allowed the CENVAT credit on out-door travel services and mobile phone services but remanded the decision regarding CENVAT credit on canteen services for further verification and consideration of the effect of subsidization on credit availment. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case.