Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 963 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - services provided by the dealers to the customers on behalf of the appellant - meaning of input services pre and post 01.04.2011 - reliance to be placed on precedent decisions - whether the earlier Division Bench decisions of the Tribunal in M/S. CARRIER AIRCONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION LTD. VERSUS CCE, GURGAON [2016 (3) TMI 124 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], M/S HONDA MOTORCYCLE & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD., SHRI SUNIL GUPTA AND SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR VERSUS CCE & ST, ALWAR [2018 (12) TMI 929 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX [2016 (11) TMI 867 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] should be relied upon as precedents and the decision of the Tribunal rendered on 24.11.2017, in the own case of the appellant, should be taken to have been rendered per incuriam? - HELD THAT:- The principle of per incuriam can be applied for such decisions which have been given in ignorance of some statutory provision or some authority that is binding. In the present case, the Tribunal in M/S CASE NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (I) PVT LTD VERSUS CCE INDORE [2017 (11) TMI 1481 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], distinguished the earlier binding decisions of the Tribunal on a mistaken belief that an amendment had been made in a definition of “input service”, whereas the ‘means’ clause of the definition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal and it had not been amended. The Division Bench proceeded on an assumption that the benefit of CENVAT credit was being taken by the appellant therein either under the ‘includes’ clause or ‘excludes’ clause of the definition of ‘input service’, which portion had been amended whereas reliance had been placed by the appellant on the decisions which had interpreted the ‘means’ clause of the definition of the ‘input service’. It was, therefore, clearly a case where that part of the statutory provision that should have been applied was ignored and that part of the statutory provision that was not relevant to the controversy was considered. When CENVAT credit was sought to be justified by the appellant under the ‘means’ clause, for which reliance was placed on the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, there was no necessity to examine whether it can be justified under the ‘includes’ clause or ‘excludes’ clause of the definition. The decision rendered by the Tribunal on 24.11.2017 is, therefore, clearly per incuriam. It is, therefore, considered appropriate to follow the three decisions rendered by the Tribunal in Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration, Honda Motorcycle and Samsung India Electronics in preference to the later decision in M/S CASE NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (I) PVT LTD VERSUS CCE INDORE [2017 (11) TMI 1481 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], which has distinguished these three decisions on a non-existent ground. The appellant correctly availed CENVAT credit on the amount of service tax paid for the services provided by the dealers to the customers on behalf of the appellant for fulfilling the warranty obligations of the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|