9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1371 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - various input services - Electrical Services - Renting of Immovable Property Services - services of Air Travel Agent and Boarding and Lodging - Manpower Supply Services. Electrical Services - Held that - The issue is no more res integra as the same has been decided by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal relied on by the Ld. Advocate in the cases of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 381 - CESTAT HYDERABAD for two different periods wherein the Tribunal has allowed the Credit on input services like construction erection installation and maintenance and repairs etc - credit allowed. Renting of Immovable Property Services - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that where the rent is paid for a place outside the factory premises there was no question of allowing CENVAT Credit for the same - credit cannot be allowed. Services of Air Travel Agent and Boarding and Lodging - Held that - The Ld. Advocate is not pressing the same. Therefore the disallowance of Credit on these two services is also upheld. Manpower Supply Services - Held that - Reliance placed in the case of M/s. Coastal Rubber Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chennai-II & vice versa 2017 (10) TMI 840 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that Admittedly services received by the appellant are Security and Man-power Supply Services . As such whatever tax has been paid on the said services is available as a credit to the service recipient - credit allowed. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on various services availed by the appellant under CCR, 2004. - Disallowance of CENVAT Credit by lower authorities. - Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand and penalties. Analysis: 1. The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on services amounting to Rs. 4,10,691 for the period April to November 2014. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging these services were not eligible as per Rule 2(l) of CCR. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,39,686 while allowing credit of Rs. 2,71,005. The Order-in-Appeal upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal. 2. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate presented details of the input services, including Electrical Services, Renting of Immovable Property, Air Travel Agent Service, Boarding & Lodging, and Manpower Supply Service. The advocate argued for the eligibility of certain services based on precedents and specific circumstances. 3. The advocate referenced tribunal decisions to support the eligibility of Electrical Services and Renting of Immovable Property. However, the demand for Air Travel Agent Service and Boarding & Lodging was not contested. Regarding Manpower Supply Service, the advocate cited tribunal decisions to justify the credit eligibility. 4. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing that rent paid for storage outside the factory gate was not eligible for credit. The advocate countered this argument with specific justifications and legal references. 5. After considering the arguments and evidence, the tribunal ruled in favor of allowing CENVAT Credit for Electrical Services but upheld the disallowance for Renting of Immovable Property, Air Travel Agent Service, and Boarding & Lodging. The tribunal also allowed the credit for Manpower Supply Service based on legal precedents and lack of contrary evidence. 6. The tribunal set aside the demand on Electrical Services and Manpower Supply Services while upholding the demand on Renting of Immovable Property Services. The demands for Air Travel Agent Service and Boarding & Lodging, not contested by the appellant, were also upheld partially. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.
|
