Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1047 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input service - transportation of employees by a manufacturer from their designated pick up points to their workplace, by Bus - service for personal use or consumption of any of the employees - activity of providing bus transport services to its employees, at the cost of the Manufacturer, to reach factory in time and the expenses incurred by the Manufacturer in providing such service, (which amount is taken into consideration, while determining the final price of the product) - renting of motor vehicle, which is Capital Goods for Service Provider - HELD THAT:- Considering the effect of definition of “input service” after 01.04.2011 it was found that establishment of such canteen was primarily for personal use or consumption of the employees and after such amendment no cenvat credit could be availed. This view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX [2021 (12) TMI 420 - SC ORDER] while dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 18.11.2021 preferred by the said appellant - The facts of the present case also indicate that the facility of transportation provided by the appellant to its employees was merely in the nature of service for personal use or consumption of its employees. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable. In THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER VERSUS M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD. [2015 (12) TMI 1062 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] there was no dispute by the Department in that case that the services consumed by an assessee were related to various stages of its manufacturing and business activities. The same is not the case herein. The Tribunal did not commit any error whatsoever in disallowing cenvat credit to the appellant after 01.04.2011 in view of the amended provisions. The service provided was mere in the nature of personal service to its employees which is not permitted to be treated as “input service” - the substantial questions of law as framed are answered against the appellant - Appeal dismissed.
|