9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 424 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - various input services - Auction Services - Courier Services - Information Technology Services - Photography Services - Rent-a-Cab Services - Travel Booking Services - Business Exhibition - AMC for Weigh Bridge - Held that - The dispute relates to the period prior to 01.04.2011 when the definition of input service had a wide ambit and included any service used by a manufacturer in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 61/2012 - Recovery of wrongly availed input service tax credit - Eligibility of input services for CENVAT Credit - Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Dispute related to period before 01.04.2011 - Various input services challenged - Judicial precedents on eligibility of input services - Dismissal of Department Appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Facts: The Department filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 61/2012 dated 14.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai-I Commissionerate. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, availed CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods, and various input services. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to recover wrongly availed input service tax credit on certain services. The Order-in-Original confirmed the proposals, but the Order-in-Appeal set aside the decision, leading to the Department's appeal. 2. Contentions of the Department: During the hearing, the Department's representative argued that certain input services were not eligible for CENVAT Credit as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Department sought to set aside the Order-in-Appeal based on the ineligibility of eight specific input services. 3. Contentions of the Assessee: The assessee's advocate contended that the issue pertained to a period before 01.04.2011 when the definition of "input service" was broader. The eligibility of credit for the disputed services had been established by previous CESTAT decisions. Detailed arguments were presented for each challenged service to justify their eligibility as input services. 4. Judicial Analysis and Decision: After considering the arguments and reviewing relevant judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the dispute related to a period when the definition of "input service" was comprehensive. Referring to previous decisions, including those involving the same assessee and other cases, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned Order-in-Appeal did not require any intervention. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, upholding the Order-in-Appeal. 5. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was based on the broader definition of "input service" applicable during the relevant period and the consistency of previous judicial interpretations. The dismissal of the Department's appeal affirmed the eligibility of the disputed input services for CENVAT Credit, as established by legal precedents. This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects of the legal judgment, including the issues raised, arguments presented, judicial analysis, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
