Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1069 - AT - Central ExciseEligibility of Cenvat credit - Management, Maintenance and Repair service of helicopter - Department denied credit on the ground that the helicopter was not exclusively used for the appellant's unit at Viralimalai - Appellant filed copy of Invoices raised by the appellant company on other companies for the usage of Helicopter and Service Tax has also been collected under the category “Business Auxiliary Service” - Held that:- there is no requirement under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which defines 'input service' that the usage has to be in relation to a particular unit. Input service definition during the period in dispute i.e., March 2010 to April 2010 was very wide and the inclusive definition covered “activities relating to business”, which has not been taken into consideration. The denial of credit is therefore incorrect and unsustainable. Eligibility of Cenvat credit - RentaCab service and contract bus service - used exclusively for the transportation of officers - Commissioner (Appeals) has held that they recover the cost from the employees and there is no denial of the same - Held that:- a consistent stand taken by various Courts and Tribunals is that when there is a recovery of cost, the proportionate credit should be reversed. The denial of the entire credit is erroneous and the appellants are directed to reverse the proportionate credit to the extent of recovery of cost from the employees. Eligibility of Cenvat credit - Management and consultancy service - Held that:- there is no requirement in the input service definition that the eligibility to credit is factory based. The consultancy provided has not been disputed. When there is no dispute on the consultancy provided, denial for the reason that, there is every reason to believe that his consultancy service is not meant for the exclusive use of the appellants unit alone in the show cause notice without elaborating as to the reason for the said belief is unsustainable. The show cause notice is the foundation for any proceeding. In this case, the allegation is too vague and therefore, the appellant's contention to the contrary cannot be doubted. Accordingly, credit is eligible. Imposition of penalty - Held that:- the issue being interpretative in nature, penalty is not warranted and the same is accordingly set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
|