TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispute over CENVAT credit for services obtained at Head Office resolved</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Guntur Versus M/s. Cholayil (P) Ltd.</h3> The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Guntur Versus M/s. Cholayil (P) Ltd. - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 29 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:Dispute over CENVAT credit for services availed at Head Office, Denial of credit by Revenue, Appeal by Respondent, Commissioner (Appeals) decision, Nexus with manufacturing activity, Specific services disputed, Business Auxiliary Service vs. Freight Business Auxiliary, Legal arguments on food coupons as input service, Appeal decision on disputed amount.Analysis:The case involves a dispute regarding the availing of CENVAT credit by the Respondent for services obtained at their Head Office. The Revenue contended that the services were not related to manufacturing activities, leading to the denial of credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal. The argument centered on the nexus between the services and manufacturing activities.The Respondent detailed the credit denied for various services, including Tours & Travel Consultancy, Consultancy Services, Insurance Services, and more. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced previous decisions to support the claim that these services were indeed input services for the Respondent. The broad definition of input services under Rule 2(l) was highlighted, encompassing services commonly availed at Head Offices like accounting and auditing. The circular issued by CBEC and relevant court decisions were also considered in determining the nexus.However, a specific amount related to Business Auxiliary Service faced further examination. It was revealed that the service was misclassified as Freight Business Auxiliary when it was actually Business Auxiliary Service. This amount pertained to service tax paid on food coupons provided to employees. The Respondent argued that providing food to employees was essential for business operations, citing legal precedents and circulars supporting food provision as an input service.The Revenue contended that the coupons could be used for various items, not just food, making it challenging to establish a direct nexus to business processes. The lack of clear evidence on how the coupons were utilized led to the rejection of CENVAT credit for this specific amount. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed concerning this amount, while the appeal on the remaining balance was dismissed.
TaxTMI 