Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 60 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - various input services - commercial & industrial construction service - rent-a-cab service - security agency service - site formation and clearance service - Earth moving service - demolition service - club & association service - denial on the ground that the said services are not confirming to the definition of input service contained in Rule 2 (l) of the CCR, 2004 and those services have no nexus with the manufacture of the final products by the appellant - Held that: - Under the unamended definition of input service effective upto 31st March, 2011, there were no restrictions provided for non-consideration of construction service as input service. Such embargo was created only with effect from 01.04.2011 by N/N. 3/11-CE-NT dated 01.03.2011, wehrein construction service was specifically excluded from the definition of input service. Thus, the credit taken on commercial and industrial construction service prior to 31.03.2011 should be available for cenvat benefit - With regard to the credit availed after 01.04.2011, the appellant submits that the said services are in relation to repair, renovation of existing machinery, which are specifically finding place in the inclusive part of the definition w.e.f. 01.04.2011. However, on perusal of the case records, I find that authorities below have not specifically discussed the period, during which the cenvat credit was availed by the appellant. Thus, the said factual aspects have to be verified by the original authority for proper appreciation of the facts. Rent-a-cab service - Held that: - appellant relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi Vs. Pricol Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1486 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] to state that rent-a-cab service should be considered as input service for the purpose of cenvat credit. However, for ascertaining the period of availment of cenvat credit, the matter has to be verified by the original authority, since no observations were made with regard to such aspect in the original order. As regards the security agency service, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aluminium Powder Co. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Madurai [2015 (8) TMI 1234 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. Thus, respectfully following co-ordinate Bench decision, I am of the view that the cenvat benefit on such service can be extended to the appellant. As regards the other services namely, site formation & clearance, excavation and Club or Association Service, the authorities below have not addressed the issue as to whether the said services should be considered as input service for the purpose of cenvat benefit - in respect of the disputed services, except security agency service, the original authority should verify the period during which the cenvat credit was taken by the appellant. the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|