9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices' used for transporting workers and staff to the factory. It is the contention of the appellant that they are entitled to the benefit of this CENVAT credit because this service is used in relation to the manufacture of their final products. The department's contention is that provision of bus service to bring workers to the factory is only a welfare measure and it has no nexus with manufacturing operations. The lower authority issued two show cause notices for the periods March, 2007 to January, 2011 and February, 2011 to December, 2011 seeking to recover the CENVAT credit taken in respect of the service tax paid on the said service. He adjudicated and confirmed the demands and ordered recovery of the CENVAT credit. On an appeal by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period. (b) The adjudicating authority has wrongly confirmed the demand by saying that the earlier Order-in-Appeal were not appealed against on monetary limits and the department had not accepted it on merits. (c) Since in an earlier case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the transportation of workers to the factories has a nexus to manufacture of final products, the adjudicating authority has no authority to take a contrary view. (d) In the impugned Order-in-Appeal the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice in holding that the Bus hire charges are 'rent a cab' service and hence excluded from the scope of Rule 2 of CCR, 2004. 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng services - Credit is not admissible. (4) Sai Life Sciences Ltd [2017 (51) STR 55 (Tri.-Hyd.)] in which it was held that the appellant is not entitled to the Credit of rent a cab service as it is itself allowed under the Rules. 6. I have gone through the records of the case and considered arguments on both sides. I find force in the arguments of the appellant that the show cause notice would not state that the appellant had availed credit of tour operator services used for transportation of their employees. The Learned first appellate authority had gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice in holding that the Bus Hire charges are in the nature of rent a cab operator service. Be that as it may, the issue to be decided is whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bombay in the case of Manikgarh Cement (supra) and in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd (supra). The next question is whether the department is prohibited from issuing a show cause notice by virtue of the fact that they had not appealed against adverse order by the Commissioner (Appeals) for an earlier period. It is the contention of the department that these were not contested on monetary grounds. The assessee asserts that they were accepted on merits. I have not found any evidence to support either argument. Be that as it may, the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a binding precedent on the CESTAT and therefore an independent decision can be taken in this regard. I therefore find that assessee is not entitled to the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
