TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commissioner (AR): For Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal relates to disallowance of CENVAT credit on input services being rent a cab, mobile telephone service, telephone service used in residence and guesthouse, pest control of factory and office, aggregating ₹ 47,160/- more fully detailed in Annexure A to the show-cause notice. 2. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods. Vide show-cause notice dated 05/12/2011, it appeared to revenue that the aforementioned services availed by the assessee do not fall under the category of input services as defined under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 in as much as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transportation of employees (rent a cab service), group insurance/health policy as eligible for availing CENVAT credit. In the earlier order almost all the services involved in the present appeal have been held to be allowable as input services. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the case of the revenue, at best is that part of the service and/or period in dispute falls after 01/04/2011, when exclusion clause was introduced in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On this issue learned Counsel states that there is no allegation in the show-cause notice that the services have been provided to a particular employee. As such the exclusion clause is not applicable in the facts of their case. She further relied on the rulin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the business meetings held at various places, including AGM. Further as regards allegation of personal use, this Tribunal held that in absence of any such dispelling it is to be held that these services on which CENVAT credit availed are not for personal consumption of the employee, but it was billed for service provided for business meetings, etc. Accordingly prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 5. The learned AR for Revenue relied upon the impugned order and further relied on the amendment in Rule 2(l) of CCR w.e.f. 01/04/2011. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, I find that there is no allegation in the show-cause notice, nor any findings in the orders of the court below that the services in question hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
