9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 894 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - rent-a-cab - outdoor catering services - Held that - the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Marvel Vinyls Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 (11) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where Cenvat credit on motor vehicle was allowed which were used for bringing the employees to the company - credit allowed on rent-a-cab service. CENVAT credit - outdoor catering services - Held that - the issue has come up in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (12) TMI 596 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that the cost of such services, are admittedly borne by the company and not by the employee. Therefore, I hold that the Appellant has correctly claimed the cenvat credit on outdoor catering services - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Whether Cenvat credit on input services like rent-a-cab and outdoor catering services is admissible during the relevant period. 2. Interpretation of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Applicability of Exclusion Clause B regarding renting of a motor vehicle. 4. Eligibility of motor vehicles as capital goods for availing Cenvat credit. 5. Claim of Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services based on business activities and cost attribution. Analysis: 1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing activities, availed credit on input services such as rent-a-cab and outdoor catering during April 2011 to November 2013. The department disallowed these credits, leading to the present appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal No.206/2016-17 dated 11.11.2016. 2. The Tribunal referred to the definition of input service in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which includes services used directly or indirectly in the manufacturing process. An Exclusion Clause B introduced from 1-4-2011 pertained to renting of a motor vehicle, excluding non-capital goods. The appellant argued that motor vehicles were capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, thus eligible for credit. 3. The Tribunal noted that the exclusion clause applied to motor vehicles not classified as capital goods. It critiqued the lower authority's interpretation, emphasizing that the status of capital goods depended on the service provider, not the recipient. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit on service tax paid for the rented motor vehicles. 4. Regarding outdoor catering services, the Tribunal cited a previous case where it was determined that such services used for business activities and not personal use were eligible for Cenvat credit. The appellant's claim for credit on outdoor catering services was allowed based on this precedent and the cost attribution to the company rather than individual employees. 5. Following previous decisions and in light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's claims, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential relief. The appeal was thus allowed in favor of the appellant. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal interpretations and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal concerning the admissibility of Cenvat credit on specific input services during the relevant period.
|
