9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital goods for the service recipient cannot be appreciated inasmuch as motor vehicles are admittedly capital goods for the service provider in terms of Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004. The appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit on service tax paid on the aforesaid service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 75 r/w Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "CCR, 2004") and also for imposing penalties u/Ss. 76,77 & 8 of Finance Act, 1994 r/w Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. The Adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2016 confirmed the demand and ordered recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 2,38,762/- with interest and penalty. The 1st Appellate Authority i.e. the learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 7.6.2018 set aside the demand of ₹ 21,069/- qua Cenvat credit availed on professional service and upheld the demand of ₹ 2,17,693/- on Rent-a-cab service alongwith interest u/R. 14 of CCR, 2004 r/w Section 75 ibid and reduced the penalty to ₹ 2,17,693/- u/R. 15(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods; or Xxx xxx xxx" 5. An identical issue came up for consideration before a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Marvel Vinyls Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore; 2017 (49)STR 424 (Tri.- Del) and the Tribunal while deciding the issue in favour of Appellant therein held that the interpretation that motor vehicle are not capital goods for the service recipient cannot be appreciated inasmuch as motor vehicles are admittedly capital goods for the service provider in terms of Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004. The relevant extract of the said decision is as under:- "3. After hearing both the sides, I find that the definition of input service is contained in Rule 2(l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He has rightly observed that the exclusion is only in respect of that motor vehicle which is not a capital goods. However, he has not extended the benefit to the assessee by observing that the same is not a capital goods for the appellant. A person who is receiving the input services of renting of immovable property, can never avail Cenvat credit of duty paid on the motor vehicles and as such motor vehicle can never be a capital good to the recipient of the said services. The motor vehicle will always be a capital goods or otherwise for the person who is providing the services. For service provider falling under the category of renting of motor vehicle the motor vehicle would always be a capital goods. As such the expression - "which is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
