2017 (12) TMI 817 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - various input services - Security Service - Professional Service - Security Service - Sales Promotion Service - Employee Training - Employee Group Insurance - Rent-a-cab Service - Food expenses for employee - Sodexho coupons - Rent of marketing office - Interior service for marketing office - Manpower recruitment for marketing office - Held that - all these services fall in the definition of input service and the appellant has rightly taken the CENVAT credit on these impugned service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise
- Penalty imposed on authorized signatory
- Reduction of penalty on authorized signatory
- Interpretation of input services under CENVAT Credit Rules

Analysis:
1. Appeal against Impugned Order:
The appellants filed an appeal against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Bangalore. The issue involved in the appeals was identical, leading to the disposal of all three appeals through a single order.

2. Penalty Imposed on Authorized Signatory:
The penalty of ?50,000 was imposed on the authorized signatory, Mr. T. Sornam, for irregular availment of CENVAT credit on input services. The Department appealed against the reduction of this penalty, which was a key aspect of the case.

3. Interpretation of Input Services under CENVAT Credit Rules:
The crux of the case revolved around the interpretation of input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider the definition of input service properly. They contended that various judicial decisions had recognized the services for which CENVAT credit was denied as input services. The appellant provided a detailed list of input services and corresponding case laws supporting their argument.

4. Legal Argument and Decision:
The appellant's counsel argued that services related to employee expenses, such as training, insurance, rent-a-cab, and others, fell within the definition of input services as they were part of the employee cost and contributed to the production process. They cited relevant case laws and highlighted the wide interpretation of 'input service' by various courts. Relying on these arguments and precedents, the appellant's appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed as a result of the appellant's success.

5. Conclusion:
The judgment, delivered on 22.08.2017 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, underlines the importance of a comprehensive understanding of input services under CENVAT Credit Rules. The decision showcases the significance of legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant statutes in resolving disputes related to CENVAT credit availment and penalties imposed on authorized signatories.