Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 11 - CESTAT HYDERABADCENVAT Credit - input services - air travel agency - place of removal - amended definition of input services given in Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - HELD THAT:- The input service could be ‘any service’ which was used by the manufacturer and / or any output service provider directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of final products and those which are used for the purpose of clearances of final products upto the place of removal; but not limited to and include the services used in relation to, inter alia, sales promotion; procurement of inputs; quality control; auditing etc. as specified in the inclusive part of the definition - with regard to the services related to the activities specified in the inclusive part of the definition, there is no necessity to establish any direct relation or nexus with the manufacturing activity. This implies that it is not only the activities specified in the inclusive part of the definition but also any services used in relation to such activities specified in the inclusive part of the definition, would qualify themselves as an input service, under Rule 2 (l) of CCR. Air Travel Agency Service having been used by the officials of the manufacturer for traveling to different places for creating the demand for the products manufactured by them is also a service used in relation to procurement of inputs, sales promotion/ marketing activities (which is a specified activity in the inclusive part of the definition) thus it also qualify itself as an input service, even after 01.04.2011. There is no denial to the fact that the air-travel agency service, in the present case has been used for business purpose i.e. for the purpose of promotion of sales, auditing, review of various business processes, inspection of vender premises and other business purposes. None of these services were used for personal use or consumption by any employee. Accordingly, they were all for the purpose of the appellant company, its corporate office and all other units - in respect of air-travel services itself in appellant’s own case the Department has allowed the credit. There are no justification in the order under challenge while denying the said eligibility despite admitting that the service was not used by the employees personally - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|