Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 300 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit of service tax paid under 'Rent a Cab' service on account of engaging cabs for transport of children of staff members from resident to school and back - Held that:- To call the activity of transportation of staff children from the colony to the school and back as an activity relating to business is devoid of any logic, reason or rationale. The judgement of CESTAT in the appellant's own case (2012 (12) TMI 228 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) cited by the appellant allowed such credit on the ground that the cost of the said service was included in the cost of production as per CAS-4 standards. That in my view is not a valid ground for treating the impugned service as input service because "input service" has been clearly defined in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and if every service which forms part of cost of production (CAS-4) is to be treated as service in relation to activities relating to business, then there was no need to define input service in the manner it has been done. Indeed the said ground would render several words of the definition redundant. It is settled law that statute should be so interpreted as not to render, to the extent possible, the words used by legislature redundant. The said judgement of CESTAT is a Single Member judgement. On the other hand, the Division Bench judgement of CESTAT in the appellant's own case (supra) cited by ld. Departmental Representative has clearly held that rent a cab service availed for transportation of children of employees from colony to school and back is not an input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. It is obvious that CESTAT Division Bench decision would prevail over the Single Member CESTAT decision. I however note that the issue involved was interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules and the Division Bench in the said judgement waived penalty on that account. Accordingly, waiver of penalty in the present case is also justified, more so in the light of the fact that the Single Member Bench CESTAT judgement decided the issue in favour of the appellant.
|