TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce such evidence as may prove as to who actually paid the said fee. As it will be the deciding criteria as to whether the fee was paid for the company as a whole under any of its policy for enhancing employee efficiency or those have been born by the individual employee for the sake of their own entertainment. Apparently there is no such evidence on record - impugned order upheld - credit rightly denied. Health check up of employees - Held that:- It cannot be ruled out that the good health of employee will make them readily available for rendering the activities related to business. The appellants are in telecommunication business. Their employees are required to function for long hours and even at odd hours. The health of an employee may affect the activity of the appellants business - the expenditure incurred by the appellant company for getting medical check-up of their employees, though individually, is definitely an input service - credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - capital goods - desktop - chairs - fire extinguishers - Held that:- Any goods which are used for providing output service can be classified as the capital goods. Appellant admittedly are providing telecommunicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls), upheld the following demand. Particulars Period Covered Amount Involved Deposit/ Reversal Interest recoverable Cenvat credit on input services such as outdoor catering, club membership medical health checkup. April 2010 to Sept. 2011 Rs.1,18,086/- (ST ₹ 1,14539/- + Cess ₹ 3,547/-) Deposited on 16.08.201 ( under protest ) Rs.44,701/- Cenvat Credit on items like desktop, chairs and fire extinguishers April 2010-Nov. 2011 Rs.2,75,452/- (ST ₹ 2,67,429/-+ Cess ₹ 8023/-) Deposited on 16.08.2012 ( under protest ) Rs.86,369 Rs.3,93,540/ Rs.1,31,070/ Still being aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 4. I have heard Ms. Sakun Arora, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Poddar, ld. D.R. for the Department. 5. For the purpose of impugned adjudication, the definition of input service has to be looked into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents organized for the employees of the company, the events were related to the company. Hence the expenses incurred in engaging the outdoor caterer for the arrangement of refreshment in the said events are not the expenses for any personal use of the employees. It is impressed upon that the said service has rather been used in fulfilment of statutory obligation under Section 46 of the Factories Act. The Cenvat Credit as availed there upon is therefore admissible. The same is alleged to have wrongly been denied. It is further submitted that the distinction for the services for personal use came into effect from 01.04.2011. Prior to the said period all services used to fall within the phrase activities relating to business. She has relied upon Hindustan Cococola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad- 2017 (49) STR 88 (Tri.-Hybd.) and Bharti Hexacom India Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I Final Order No. 51963/2017 dated 23.02.2017. 8. While rebutting these arguments, the ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon various case laws as mentioned in para A to B of para 8(B) of the impugned order and has rightly denied the outdoor catering services to be an eligible inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be an eligible credit has prayed for the order to be upheld. 14. I opine that the adjudicating authorities below while denying the cenvat credit thereupon have held that there is no evidence produced by the appellant to prove any nexus of the services availed by the assessee to the business activity of the appellants. No doubt, appellant was supposed to produce such evidence as may prove as to who actually paid the said fee. As it will be the deciding criteria as to whether the fee was paid for the company as a whole under any of its policy for enhancing employee efficiency or those have been born by the individual employee for the sake of their own entertainment. Apparently there is no such evidence on record. In absence thereof, I find no infirmity in the order under challenge. The authority below has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Mudra Port SEZ Ltd. Vs. CCE reported as 2009 (18) STT 314 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein, it was held that service tax paid on club house fee meant for the recreation of workers is not an eligible credit as it is not used for providing output services. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the said finding. The order to said extent is he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration i.e. for providing telecommunication services. Even fire extinguisher is an essential item in the business premises of the appellant, without which, the appellant is not suppose to operate its premises. Hence all these articles are the capital goods. Reliance placed on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. CCE 2016 (42) STR 938 (Tri.-Mum.) and Mylan Labs v. CCE 2017 (6) TMI 669 (CESTAT- Hyderabad). 19. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has impressed upon the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the order has impressed upon that only such category of goods as are mentioned in Rule 2 (a) (A) Clauses (i) (iii) of Cenvat Credit Rules as used for providing output services can qualify as capital goods and none other. The order to this extent is prayed to be upheld. 20. Before adjudicating, definition of capital goods needs to be looked into which is as follows:- (a) capital goods means:- the following goods, namely:- (A) (i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, heading No. 68.05 grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under heading 6804 of the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act; (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
