Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 130 - AT - Central ExciseWrongful availment and utilization of cenvat credit - input services or not - Air Travel Agency Service - Works Contract Service - Construction Service - manufacture of soft ferrite parts/components falling under Tariff Heading No.85051110 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Air Travel Agent/Rail Travel Agent Services - HELD THAT:- If the Travels were for personal purpose or consumption of an employee, it would not be provided by the Appellant Company and will not be debited to their Books of Accounts. Unless and until, the Travel is for business exigencies, the Company would not include the expenditure and debit the same in the Books of Accounts. The entire order of the Adjudicating Authority is very cryptic and there is no discussion to justify the conclusion drawn in the adjudication order. He has simply proceeded to confirm the demand as proposed in the show-cause notice. Works Contract Service - HELD THAT:- This Notification is applicable to individual/partnership firm and Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It is not applicable to corporate assessee. The Appellant herein is a Private Limited Company and the services are supplied by Private Limited Company. Accordingly, this Notification is not applicable to the present case. Further, the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has also referred to Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 01.07.2012 for valuation of service and abatement. This Notification is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the credit disallowed under the “Works Contract Service” cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Commercial and construction service - HELD THAT:- Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the service recipient is required to make payment of the service value on service along with the service tax within three months from the date of issuance of invoice - It is the submission of the Ld.Advocate for the Appellant that this aspect was never raised either in the show-cause notice or in the Order-in-Original and the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the Show-cause notice and this issue has been raised for the first time - the disallowance on this count is set aside. Air Travel Service - HELD THAT:- The said services were used only for the Company’s Executives to travel to achieve the business objective and has not been used for employees’ personal necessity, the credit of service tax paid on such services, cannot be denied in view of the decisions in the cases of Arkema Paroxides India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Pondicherry [2016 (9) TMI 435 - CESTAT CHENNAI], Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida [2014 (1) TMI 37 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and Innovasynth Techologies (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad [2015 (3) TMI 127 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. The impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
|