Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1006 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - renting-a-cab service during the period 2011-12, credit denied on the ground that definition of input service w.e.f. 01.04.2011 excludes the service - outdoor catering service during the period 2014-15, credit denied on the ground of nexus? - HELD THAT:- Although the Appellants have received rent-a-cab service prior to 01.04.2011 which is supported by the documentary evidence wherein the travel date is prior to 01.04.2011 but the invoices has been recorded in the books of accounts and in Cenvat credit register post 01.04.2011, which still make the appellant eligible to avail the Cenvat credit - the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/S MEDIACOM MEDIA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.G. ST., MUMBAI EAST [2019 (10) TMI 690 - CESTAT MUMBAI] supports the present case. Even the circular dated 29.4.2011 issued by the Government clarified that the credit in respect of rent a cab service would be available in case the provision of the service was completed before 1.4.2011. Outdoor catering services - HELD THAT:- The amount which pertains to air travel service has to be deducted from the total amount of Rs.1,66,860/- as Air travel service has already been allowed by the Authority below. Once the amount of air travel service is deducted from the total amount of Rs.1,66,860/- then only Rs.1,837/- remains under the head outdoor catering service. Now I have to see whether the appellant is eligible to avail the credit of Rs.1,837/- which relates to outdoor catering service. The said service has been used by appellant for providing meals to its employees round the clock and certainly the same is going to enhance efficiency and performance of the appellant’s employees which undoubtedly has nexus with the output service and therefore the credit is admissible - Undisputedly the said service is used by the appellant for its business activity during office hours and not as a personal or welfare measure for its employees nor it’s a perquisite provided by the appellant to its employees. Other issues like extended period, penalty etc. not entered upon - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|