9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igibility to the Cenvat benefit - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - Outdoor catering services - bus hiring services - rent-acab service - telephone services - Held that: - Tribunal in various decisions has allowed the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on those services, holding that those services are also be considered as input service, even after the amendment of definition under Rule 2 (l) w.e.f. 01/04/2011 - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 50006 of 2018 (SM) - A/51595/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the appellant. Shri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. Per. S.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturing activity. Thus, she submits that such service should be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit. She has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Godawari Power Ispat Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2017 (12) TMI 894 CESTAT NEW DELHI. 2.3 With regard to telephone service, it is her submission that the landline and the mobile phones were provided by the appellant to its staff members for smooth and effective operation of the manufacturing activities. Thus, the said service should also be considered as input service. She has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rajratan Global Wire Ltd. vs. CCE, Ujjain, M.P ., reported in 2018 (3) TMI 1375, CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (supra), Godawari Power Ispat Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur (supra) and Rajratan Global Wire Ltd. vs. CCE, Ujjain, M.P. (supra) has allowed the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on those services, holding that those services are also be considered as input service, even after the amendment of definition under Rule 2 (l) w.e.f. 01/04/2011. Therefore, I also do not find any merits in the impugned order, in so far as it denied the Cenvat credit on these services. With regard to submission of the learned DR for the Revenue that appellant is a service provider of the disputed services, and thus, cannot be eligible for Cenvat credit, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has not discussed such aspects and has confined his fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
