Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 744 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - air travel agents’ service - telephone services - rent-a-cab services - goods transport agency services - legal consultancy services - other miscellaneous - credit involved in input service distribution - Held that: - Eligibility for CENVAT credit on air travel agents service is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in Steadman Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - III [2016 (7) TMI 590 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that when air travel was performed for the purpose of company business the Service Tax paid on the said air travel agent service is admissible as credit, the same principle is applicable for rail travel agents service also - credit allowed. Telephone service - Held that: - Eligibility of telephone service settled by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. Fourrts (I) Laboratories Pvt Ltd [2009 (10) TMI 175 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that as regards telephone service, since they are required to meet out day to day business activities, such services are also in relation to business falling within the scope of the definition of input service and therefore service tax credit on telephone service is admissible - credit allowed. Rent a cab service - legal consultancy service - Held that: - ‘rent-a-cab service’ and ‘legal consultancy service’ are inputs within the meaning of rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with no justifiable ground for denying availment - credit allowed. Other miscellaneous service - Held that: - an amount of ₹ 21,185/- was availed as credit of the tax paid on the sitting fees of Directors on ‘reverse charge basis’. It is well settled in law that tax discharged as ‘reverse charge’ can be availed as CENVAT credit - credit allowed. Credit availed for input service distribution - Held that: - it is the claim of the appellant that recovery cannot be effected from the recipient of the service - Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur v. Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited [2014 (11) TMI 76 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reallocate the CENVAT credit to the assessee in question as there was no such allegation in the show-cause notice and he cannot go beyond the allegation in the SCN to decide the issue - There is no clear finding on this aspect in the order of the two lower authorities. This needs fresh determination. GTA service - Held that: - Credit availed on ‘goods transport agency service’, being relatable to outward transportation is disallowed - credit denied. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|