2017 (2) TMI 209 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - courier agency service - various input services - catering service - refreshment expense - event/facilitation/conference room expenses - membership charges - hotel expenses/hotel services/travel accommodation - entertainment service - life insurance charges - parking services - banquet hall charges - conduct services - denial on the ground that the services are not input services u/r 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Held that - all these services on which CENVAT credit has been denied fall in the definition of input service prior to its amendment on 1.4.2011 - Reliance placed in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Disputed CENVAT credit availed by the appellant for various services
- Interpretation of input services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Validity of the impugned order denying CENVAT credit
- Applicability of case laws supporting the appellant's claim

Analysis:

1. Disputed CENVAT Credit:
The appellant, a private limited company providing courier services, availed CENVAT credit for services like catering, refreshments, event expenses, etc., from April 2006 to March 2011. The Department contended that these services did not qualify for credit under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. A show-cause notice demanding recovery of the credit, interest, and penalty was issued. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Commissioner (A) and subsequently to the Tribunal.

2. Interpretation of Input Services:
The appellant argued that the impugned order misinterpreted the definition of input services. They claimed that the disputed services were essential for their courier business and fell within the definition of input services. The appellant cited various decisions to support their claim, emphasizing that the services were not personal expenses but genuine business expenditures directly related to their business activities.

3. Validity of Impugned Order:
The Tribunal examined the submissions of both parties and reviewed the material presented. After considering the appellant's arguments and the case laws cited, the Tribunal found that the disputed services indeed qualified as input services before the amendment on April 1, 2011. Citing the decision in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, the Tribunal emphasized the broad interpretation of input services, allowing credits for services directly or indirectly related to business activities.

4. Applicability of Case Laws:
The Tribunal referenced multiple case laws presented by the appellant, highlighting the importance of each limb of the definition of input services. By applying the principles established in these cases, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed all five appeals of the appellant, providing consequential relief as necessary.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore showcases the key issues, arguments, legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered in favor of the appellant regarding the disputed CENVAT credit.