9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g various input services in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The present dispute relates to eligibility of the appellants for credit on these input services. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant to deny and recover cenvat credit on various services availed by them. These services are: (i) Advertisement Agency Services (ii) Banking & Financial Services (iii) Banking Auxiliary & Business Promotion Services (iv) Commercial Training & Coaching Services and Training and development Services (v) Canteen Services (vi) Courier Services (vii) Customs House Agent Service & Inward freight services (viii) Consultancy Services (ix) Commission Agent Services (x) Event Management Services (xi) Foreign Consultancy Services (xii) Insurance Services (xiii) Mandeep Keeper Services (xiv) Market Research Services (xv) Real estate Services (xvi) Repair & Maintenance (xvii) Security Services (xviii) Telephone, Tours & Travel Services 3. The Original Authority in the impugned orders disallowed the credit on various services except service tax paid on consultancy charges and foreign consultancy charges. The main reason quoted in the impugned orders is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the chassis. As a result of this activity the complete vehicle comes into existence at the job worker s premises who clears such vehicle on payment of duty. The vehicle cleared by the job worker factory is transferred to the depot of the appellant from where the sale of vehicle is effected to independent buyers. The following services have been denied the benefit of cenvat credit in the impugned order for the reason that these services have been used in relation to complete vehicles whereas the appellant is a manufacturer only of chassis. i) Advertisement Agency Services ii) Market Research iii) Telephone Tours & Travel Services iv) Business Auxiliary & Business Promotion Services v) Commission Agent Service vi) Event Management Services vii) Commercial Training and Coaching Services viii) Banking & Financial Services ix) Security Service x) Mandap Keeper Service 7. We find that in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has considered and allowed the service tax credit for various services like advertisement, sales promotion, market research etc. availed by the manufacturer of concentrate for soft drinks. In that case C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oca Cola India case, such services have also been held to be valid input services in the following decisions: * Multiflex Laxmi Print Ltd. vs. CCE 2016-TIOL-1544-CESTAT-MUM * Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I- 2013 (30) STR 572 (Tri. Mumbai) * Telenet Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Belapur 2012 (277) ELT 209 (Tri. Mumbai). (iii) Business Auxiliary & Business Promotion Services have been claimed as input service. We find that such services have been used for dealers meet, financier meet, sales force training and employee seminar etc. We find that such services have been specifically allowed as input services in the following decisions: * Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE 2015-TIOL-1889-CESTAT-DEL * Shree Cement Ltd. vs. CCE- 2014 (36) STR 1107 (Tri. Del.) * J.P. Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE -2016 (42) STR 196 (Tri. Mum.) (iv) Commission agent service for sales of the complete vehicle have been specifically allowed in the case of Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration ltd. vs. CCE 2016 (41) STR 1004 (Tri.Del.) (v) Event Management services which were used for road show, product launch etc. have been held to be allowed input services in the following cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MAD-ST. 9. As discussed above, we find that all the services for which credit have been claimed under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 already stand allowed in various decisions. Hence, these issues are no longer res-integra. Respectfully, following the above decisions, we set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal." 9. In view of the above findings by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case, we find that the denial of credit on these services is not justifiable. Further, as noted above, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Coca Cola India Pvt.Ltd. - 2009 (242) ELT 168 (Bombay) broadly laid down the principles for allowing credit on input services. The observation of the Hon'ble High Court in para-37, 38 and 39 reproduced below are relevant:- "37. A consumption tax derives its name from the fact that tax burden is ultimately borne by the final consumer and business does not bear the burden of the tax, since the business are allowed to take credit of tax paid on inputs supplied/received by them. If therefore Cenvat is denied to the input service received by the assessee as in the present case, they will become burden to the assessee, which is against the very grai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x - 1998 (5) SCC 48, which is as under : 7. We may notice that the provision is introduced with a view to encouraging and promoting growth of co-operative sector in the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the declared policy of the Government. The correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in the section would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of an income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether income fell within any of the several heads of exemption. If it fell within any one head of exemption, it would be free from tax notwithstanding that the conditions of another head of exemption are not satisfied and such income is not free from tax under that head of exemption. [Emphasis supplied]" 10. Appreciating the general principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we find that the denial of credit in any of these above categories of input services is not justifiable. 11. A specific mention has to be made regarding the dispute relating to the eligibility of the appellant for credit on Business Support Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Motors Ltd., it was held that Rule 10 A provides for method of valuation for the purpose of deciding excise duty in respect of the goods manufactured by the job worker and the provisions clearly defines the term job worker . In the present case, the appellants are manufacturing chassis for motor vehicles and clearing the same to the job worker for fabrication of full motor vehicles after body building. Thereafter the fully built motor vehicles are cleared to the depot of the appellants and the value is adopted in terms of Rule 10 A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The said Rule recognizes both the principal manufacturer and the job worker in respect of excisable goods. In the present case, the transaction value of the fully built motor vehicles were determined by the principal manufacturer and the duty liability has been discharged at the job worker s end on the said basis. Further, Business Support Service is with reference to movement of chassis and with reference to fully built motor vehicles upto the depot form part of the transaction value. In these circumstances, we find no reason to deny the credit on such input service availed by the appellant as a principal ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
