Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 648 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT credit - construction service - input service - Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of Suzuki Motorcycle (I) Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Central Excise [2011 (2) TMI 56 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - the denial of credit on construction service to the appellant is not legally sustainable as the period involved is prior to amendment in Rule 2(l) made on 01.04.2011. Architect service availed by them in connection with project planning, designing, consultancy etc - Held that: - the said services are covered within the definition of service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Denial of credit is not justifiable - the decision in the case of BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE [2011 (2) TMI 1276 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] relied upon. Insurance service - no statutory obligation for such cover and it is for personal consumption of the employee - Held that: - Statutory obligation is only an indicator to show the legal necessity of such insurance to the employees. In terms of the contractual arrangement, the appellant have to take such insurance cover for the Japanese employees. Prior to amendment of the cenvat credit Rules in 2011 there is no specific bar/exclusion in the definition. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for credit on service tax paid on life insurance during the material period. However, such credit shall not be available in respect of medical claim for family members as held by the tribunal in the case of SUNDARAM BRAKE LININGS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI-II [2014 (9) TMI 877 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where denial of such credit is upheld. Club or association service in respect to membership taken by directors - Held that: - the park extended/charged for the directors is part of their employment benefit as such has no direct nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant. Such services are far removed from the activities of the appellants and cannot be considered heaving any nexus to sustain their eligibility. Such employment benefit not having nexus with the activities of the appellant and cannot be covered under the category of input services. Reliance placed on the decision of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (6) TMI 407 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Time bar - Held that: - as all credits taken have been recorded and reported in the prescribed returns, the appellants are correct in contesting the case for extended period. There is no merit in invoking extended period and imposing penalty in the facts and circumstances at the present case. Service tax credit allowed on 'renting of immovable property service' - The appellant/assessee has provided boarding/lodging to the experts from parent company in Japan during their stay here for supervision of installation of machinery and other projects - Held that: - the contributions of these personnel has direct nexus to the manufacture and sale of the final products by the appellant/assessee. The service tax paid towards accommodation of these experts are rightly covered by the ‘input service' in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - credit eligible. CENVAT credit allowed on all services except on family insurance and club services availed by Directors - The demand on these credits is restricted to normal period - penalties set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|