9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/capital goods and service tax on the input services. During the disputed period i.e., March 2009 to May 2013, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on various services, which were sought to be denied on the ground that those services are not confirming to the definition of 'input service', contained in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31/01/2014 issued by the department had proposed for denial of CENVAT amounting to Rs. 3,77,54,971/- availed by the appellant on the services viz., Foreign Remittances (Banking and Financial Services), Hotel Bills, Hospitality, Tours and Travels (Rent-a-Cab) and Air Travel Services. The matter arising out of the SCN was adjudicated by the Learned Principal Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by them for accomplishing the purpose of their manufacturing business. Since, the disputed services were used by the appellant for carrying out the business activities and the cost of such services were considered as the cost of production of the final product, it cannot be said that such services are not confirming to the definition of 'input service', prior to the period 01/04/2011. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute (prior to 2011 amendment) is no more res integra, in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - Bombay High Court] and Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Vs. CCE, Service Tax and Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products; and that do not fall under the exclusion clause provided in the definition. Since, the disputed services are not categorized as the excluded category of service(s), provided in the definition clause, we are of the view that the CENVAT benefit on the disputed services should be available to the appellant, by considering the same as 'input service'. The scope and ambit of the definition of 'input service' (w.e.f. 01/04/2011) was interpreted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati, reported in 2021 (7) TMI 1094-CESTAT Hyderabad. The relevant paragraphs in the said order are extracted he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss it is specifically excluded under the exclusion part of the definition, the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on the input services used. This Bench has already taken this view in Kellogs. Similar views have been taken by the other Benches in the other cases mentioned above." 5. We find that the disputed services involved in the present appeal were considered as 'input service' by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Delhi vs. Fiamm Minda Automotive Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 64 - CESTAT New Delhi], Secure Meters Ltd. vs. CE & ST-Udaipur [2018 (8) TMI 950 - CESTAT New Delhi], Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai-II [2015 (40) S.T.R. 719 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Visakhapatnam-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and their clearance. The meaning of the word 'includes' was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the interpretation of the said word in the definition of 'inputs' in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the decision of Ramala Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the word 'includes' cannot be given a restrictive interpretation. As seen from the definition of 'input service' for the period prior to 1-4-2011, input service included the services used in relation to setting up of factory and also office in relation to factory. The staff colony is situated within the factory premises. The intention of providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). The said decision was rendered in a case of interpretation of 'inputs' and not 'input services'. Moreover, the decision rendered in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) was doubted and referred to a Larger Bench and differed as reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). The decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) being no longer good law, the judgment rendered in the case of Manikgarh Cement relying upon the decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), in our opinion would not be applicable." 7. During the course of the arguments, the Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted fairly that post 01/04/2011, they would not be entitled for CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
