2015 (3) TMI 1214 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal allows Cenvat credit for outdoor catering service

Idea Cellular Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal of M/s. Spice Communication Ltd. (now M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd.) against the denial of Cenvat credit ... Cenvat credit - service tax paid on outdoor catering service - period is from 2004-05 to 2008-09 - Held that:- input service has been defined under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the same as it stood at the relevant time included within the scope any service which was used in or in relation to the rendering of output service. Therefore, the appellant was rightly entitled for the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on catering service. The ratio of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court would apply squarely to the facts of the present case and this Tribunal in a number of cases have followed the same decision and allowed such input service credits. Therefore, by following the ratio of these decisions in the present case also, I hold that the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service. - Decided in favour of appellant Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on outdoor catering service, recovery of interest and penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Finance Act, 1994In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appellant, M/s. Spice Communication Ltd. (now known as M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd.), appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on outdoor catering service, amounting to Rs. 12,92,408, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. The lower appellate authority had also ordered the recovery of interest on the wrongly taken credit and imposed a penalty under Rule 15(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that during the relevant period of 2004-05 to 2008-09, outdoor catering service fell within the definition of input service, as any service used in or in relation to rendering the output service was included. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. and a Tribunal decision in the case of SKF Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Bangalore. The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.The Tribunal analyzed the submissions made by both parties and found the reasoning of the adjudicating authority for denying the Cenvat credit to be illogical and perverse. The adjudicating authority had distinguished the present case from the Ultratech Cement Ltd. case based on the number of workers employed and the nature of the appellant's business as an output service provider. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this distinction, emphasizing that the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, at the relevant time, encompassed any service used in or in relation to the rendering of output service. Therefore, the appellant was rightfully entitled to the Cenvat credit on the service tax paid for catering service. The Tribunal held that the ratio of the Ultratech Cement Ltd. case decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court applied to the present case, and previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the Cenvat credit on the outdoor catering service, along with any consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment overturned the lower authority's decision to deny the Cenvat credit on service tax paid on outdoor catering service to the appellant, M/s. Spice Communication Ltd. (now M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd.), for the period of 2004-05 to 2008-09. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of input service at the relevant time included services used in relation to rendering output services, and therefore, the appellant was eligible for the credit. The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.