Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 768 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Rent-a-Cab service for transporting the employees from various pick up points to the manufacturing facility for the period after 2011 - Held that:- With effect from 01.04.2011, Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, have been amended to provide for specific exclusion in respect of rent-a-cab service from the definition of input service. The exclusion clause has got three limbs categorized as (A), (B) and (C). The phrase specifically “for personal consumption” appearing in (C) is not linked to clause (A) and (B). In the present case the services sought to be denied are part of limb (B). The exclusion clause is provided in the statute is with reference to the specific definition clause only. Something which may be covered has got to be excluded by way of exclusion. In view of the exclusion clause the arguments with regard to the coverage, the services under the definition clause first part would not be correct - While deciding the matter the bench did not make any distinction between the services covered under clauses (B) and (C). Such interpretation which has been done ignoring the specific provisions in law cannot be but per incurium and hence cannot be binding precedence. Accordingly, the submissions made cannot be a reason for allowing the credit in respect of rent-a-cab service in the present case. Penalty - Held that:- The adjudicating authority holds that there is no mens rea and penalties under Rule 25 have not been imposed. I am not in a position to uphold any penalties imposed under the said Rule - penalties imposed under Rule 15 also could not sustain as The matter is in respect of bare interpretation - penalties set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|