9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1004 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - participation of officers in workshop for Corporate Social Responsibility - Security in the headquarters building residential colony and other activities like tree trimming/cutting, fabrication, repair maintenance of residential quarters, cleaning services in the project office, dismantling of old structure and others - Hiring of bus for transportation of the staff between office and residence - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 12 only dealt with reimbursement of travelling expenses to Chartered Accountants and held that the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit for reimbursement of travelling expenses to them. It has, therefore, to be examined whether the Appellant would be entitled to avail credit. The expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility is a statutory requirement under the Companies Act and is clearly in relation to the activity of manufacture as was also observed by the Joint Commissioner in the adjudication order. Such workshops do help the officers in better management of the business activities of the Appellant and, in fact, would be included in the coaching and training‟ mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service‟ - the appellant is clearly entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the expenditure incurred in providing this service. Security in the headquarters building residential colony and other activities like tree trimming/cutting, fabrication, repair maintenance of residential quarters, cleaning services in the project office, dismantling of old structure and others - HELD THAT - From a bare perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it does appear that providing security in the office area is connected with the business activity of the Appellant, but providing security to the residential colony is not in relation to the business activity of the Appellant. Credit has, however, been denied since bifurcation of the amount spent for security for office and residential colony has not been provided. At this stage, it needs to be noted that there are 338 personnel provided by the security agency, out of which only 4 security guards are deployed at the four residential colonies and 334 security staff are for the offices area. It is not the case of the Department that the employees/workers are living in private residential houses where security has been provided by the factory. It is an admitted fact that the residential colony is provided by the factory and it is situated within the premises owned by the Appellant and close to the mining area and offices. The residential colony has been built by the Appellant for the benefit of its employees/workers and has been maintained by the Appellant. It is necessary for the Appellant to maintain the residential colony close to the mines area for better business results. Therefore, the services, so provided, do have a nexus with the business undertaken by the Appellant - The Joint Commissioner had examined all these aspects and had arrived at a conclusion that such services had a nexus with the business of the Appellant, but the Commissioner (Appeals) without giving any reason, much less a cogent reason, has made an observation that providing such services has no nexus with the business of the Appellant. Hiring of bus for transportation of the staff between office and residence - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is not in dispute that the bus is being utilized for the purpose of transporting the employees from the residence to the factory and from factory to the residence. This is in connection with the business activity of the Appellant and, therefore, there is no good reason to deny Cenvat Credit on such input service in view of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by learned Chartered Accountant for the Appellant - the demand made under this head cannot, therefore, be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. It is not necessary to examine the contention raised by the Appellant that the extended period of limitation in regard to the first show cause notice could not have been invoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on various services. 2. Denial of Cenvat Credit on security services. 3. Denial of Cenvat Credit on welfare activities. 4. Denial of Cenvat Credit on hiring of buses for employee transportation. 5. Invocation of the extended period of limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Various Services: The Appellant, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, challenged the denial of Cenvat Credit on various services by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Joint Commissioner had allowed credit on several services, including audit/CSR workshops, security services, tree trimming, fabrication, repair and maintenance of residential quarters, cleaning services, and bus hiring for employee transportation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed credit on certain services, leading to the present appeal. 2. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Security Services: The Joint Commissioner allowed credit on security services, emphasizing the necessity of providing security in residential colonies located near the mines and offices. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit, stating that the Appellant failed to provide a bifurcation of security services used for office and residential premises. The Tribunal noted that the residential colony is integral to the mining business, and providing security services is directly linked to the business activity. The Tribunal cited the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in ITC Limited, which held that services crucial for maintaining staff colonies are considered "input services" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Rules, 2004. 3. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Welfare Activities: The Commissioner (Appeals) denied credit on welfare activities, such as beautification of premises and welfare of staff, citing decisions from various Tribunals and High Courts. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that in the context of remote mining locations, welfare activities like security and maintenance of residential colonies are essential for business operations. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from other decisions, noting the unique circumstances of the Appellant's operations in remote areas. 4. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Hiring of Buses for Employee Transportation: The Joint Commissioner allowed credit on hiring buses for employee transportation, considering it integral to the manufacturing activity. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit, labeling it a welfare activity. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from other Tribunals, held that hiring buses for employee transportation is connected to the business activity and, therefore, eligible for Cenvat Credit. 5. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation: The Appellant argued that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Given the Tribunal's decision to allow Cenvat Credit on the disputed services, it did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the appeal and granting the Appellant Cenvat Credit on the disputed services. The decision emphasized the necessity of considering the unique operational circumstances of the Appellant's remote mining locations and the integral role of provided services in business operations.
|
