2011 (9) TMI 120 - HC - Service Tax

Court affirms transportation of employees as 'input service' for tax credit

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that transportation of employees from their residence to the factory qualifies as an 'input service' ... Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that the service of transportation of employees of a factory to the factory was an ‘input service’ under the ambit of definition of ‘input service’ as given under Rule 2(I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently the credit of service tax paid on such service was allowed to be taken as credit under the said Rules of 2004 - Held that:- We respectfully agree with the findings recorded by the Bombay High Court in Coco Cola’s case (supra). The judgment rendered in Coca Cola’s case (2009 -TMI - 34433 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has also been followed in Semco Electrical Pvt Limited vs. CCE Pune (2009 -TMI - 76184 - CESTAT, MUMBAI). The reasoning given by the Tribunal is a possible reasoning which does not give rise to any substantial question of law. - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Whether the transportation of employees of a factory to the factory qualifies as an 'input service' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004Rs.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of availing Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for transportation services provided by a tour operator for ferrying employees of a manufacturing company. The Revenue contended that such services did not fall under the definition of input service, thus challenging the admissibility of the credit claimed by the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, which was further affirmed by the Tribunal.The Tribunal, in its decision, emphasized that transportation of employees from their residence to the factory premises was directly linked to the manufacturing activities of the company. It noted that such transportation facilitated the smooth functioning of the manufacturing unit by enhancing efficiency and production capacity. In support of its reasoning, the Tribunal cited a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-III (2009(242) ELT 168 (Bombay)).The appellant argued that since the Revenue had appealed the judgment in the Coca Cola case before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal should not have relied on it. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating that the pendency of an appeal did not preclude them from examining the issue. The Court concurred with the findings of the Bombay High Court in the Coca Cola case, which had also been followed in another case. It concluded that the Tribunal's reasoning was plausible and did not give rise to any substantial question of law, ultimately dismissing the appeal.Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the transportation of employees from their residence to the factory constituted an 'input service' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allowing the credit of service tax paid on such services to be availed by the manufacturing company.