Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
 
Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Tri Service Tax + Tri
← Previous Next →
TMI ID= 328571
  • Contents
  • Cases Cited

2016 (6) TMI 280 - CESTAT MUMBAI

M/s. Health India Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

Allowability of Cenvat credit - Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent Service - services used for employees benefit - Held that:- Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service though used by employees of the appellant but undisputedly for the performance of the appellant company s business. Therefore, both the services are input service. This Tribunal in the various judgments cited by the Ld. Chartered Accountant allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of both the services. I am also convinced with the submission and presentation of the books of accounts by the Ld. Chartered Accountant that expenses towards Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service were booked as expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account of the appellant. I, therefore, do not find any reason why the Cenvat Credit should not be allowed on Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service to the appellant. The Rent-a-cab service was excluded from the definition of input service. Therefore prior to 01-04-2011 the Cenvat Credit was admissible. As per my above discussion, and the settled legal position, the appellants are entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent services. - Decided in afvour of appellant

No.- Appeal No. ST/87299/2015

Order No.- A/87243/16/SMB

Dated.- March 22, 2016

Citations:

  1. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I Versus INTERPLEX ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. - 2011 (9) TMI 983 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-I Versus BELL CERAMICS LTD. - 2011 (9) TMI 792 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  3. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Versus Graphite India Ltd. - 2013 (1) TMI 347 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  4. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III Versus TATA AUTO COMP SYSTEMS LTD. - 2011 (4) TMI 1397 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  5. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, Commissionerate Versus Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. - 2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  6. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs Versus Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. - 2010 (5) TMI 483 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

  7. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III Versus MINDARIKA PVT. LTD. - 2015 (12) TMI 811 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

  8. INNOVASYNTH TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD - 2015 (3) TMI 127 - CESTAT MUMBAI

  9. M/s AFFINITY EXPRESS INDIA PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE I - 2014 (6) TMI 593 - CESTAT MUMBAI

  10. DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PVT LTD Versus Commissioner of Service Tax - BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX - 2014 (5) TMI 917 - CESTAT BANGALORE

  11. GOODLUCK STEEL TUBES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA - 2014 (1) TMI 37 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

  12. Semco Electrical (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - 2009 (12) TMI 143 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Shri Sunil Gabhawala, C.A. for Appellant

Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent

ORDER

Per Ramesh Nair

The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/37/ST-I/2015 dt. 31.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) Mumbai-I, whereby the Ld. Commissioner upholding the Order-in-Original No. KJS/R-141/2011 dt. 19.8.2011, rejected the appeal of the appellant.

2. The fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in providing Management Consultancy and Insurance Auxiliary Services. They availed Cenvat Credit on various services used in the output service. During the audit, it was found that the appellant have availed Cenvat Credit on Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent Service. The show cause notice was issued proposing disallowance of the Cenvat Credit on the ground that both these services are used for employees benefit. In the adjudication, the demand of Cenvat Credit on these two services have been confirmed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upholding the original order rejected the appeal of the appellant, therefore the appellant is before me.

3. Shri Sunil Gabhawala Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Rent-a-cab service is provided for convenience of their employee who attend the provision of service of the company. The Rent-a-cab service though excluded w.e.f. 1.4.2011 but the present case relates to the period prior to 1.4.2011 this amendment itself shows that the Rent-a-cab was an admissible input service. He further submits that on the very same Rent-a-cab service in the following judgments the Cenvat Credit has been allowed :

(i) Commissioner of C.Ex. Bangalore-I Vs. Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 578 (Kar.)

(ii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444(Kar.)

(iii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-III Vs. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd. 2012 (27) S.T.R. 338 (Kar.)

(iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. Graphite India Ltd. 2012 (27) S.T.R. 130 (Kar.)

(v) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. 2012 (25) S.T.R. 428 (Kar.)

(vi) Commr. of C.Ex. & Cus. Vs. Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. 2011 (21) S.T.R. 361 (Guj.)

As regard Air Travel Agent Service he submits that these services related to purchase of Air tickets from the Air Travel Agent for the employees of the appellant . The employees travel through out the country in connection with the core business of the appellant, therefore the Air Travel Agent Service is the input service for providing output service. In respect of Air Travel Agent in the following judgments the Cenvat Credit has been allowed:

(i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Mindarika Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 309 (Tri.-Del.)

(ii) Innovasynth Technologies (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raigad 2015 (38) S.T.R. 1232 (Tri.-Mumbai)

(iii) Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Noida 2013 (32) S.T.R. 123 (Tri.-Del.)

(iv) Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T., Bangalore 2015 (37) S.T.R. 522 (Tri.-Bang.)

(v) Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Pune-I 2015 (37) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-Mumbai)

(vi) Semco Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune 2010 (18) S.T.R. 177 (Tri.-Mumbai)

He further submits that in respect of both the services, the expenditures were booked in the books of accounts of the appellant as business expenditure. Even as per the accounting principal if any expenditure which is not related to the company is not permissible expenditure and the same is not allowed by the income tax authority also. He referred to the books of accounts produced by them that all the payments towards Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent Service shown as expenditure in the books of accounts for this reason both the services are input service and credit should be allowed.

4. Shri A.B.Kulgod Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service though used by employees of the appellant but undisputedly for the performance of the appellant company s business. Therefore, I am of the view that both the services are input service. This Tribunal in the various judgments cited by the Ld. Chartered Accountant allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of both the services. I am also convinced with the submission and presentation of the books of accounts by the Ld. Chartered Accountant that expenses towards Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service were booked as expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account of the appellant. I, therefore, do not find any reason why the Cenvat Credit should not be allowed on Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service to the appellant. The Rent-a-cab service was excluded from the definition of input service. Therefore prior to 01-04-2011 the Cenvat Credit was admissible. As per my above discussion, and the settled legal position, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent services. The impugned is set aside and appeal is allowed.

( Pronounced in court )

 
 
← Previous Next →
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version