2015 (8) TMI 29 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants Cenvat credit on inputs, denies for certain services, no penalties imposed

Globe Ground India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Delhi-IV

Globe Ground India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Delhi-IV - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 510 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Denial of Cenvat credit on inputs / input services.2. Eligibility of security and maintenance services at the Managing Director's residence for Cenvat credit.3. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on vehicle chassis converted into water carts/toilet carts.Issue 1: The appellant contested the denial of Cenvat credit on inputs/input services, arguing that they did not provide exempted services as claimed by the Revenue. The appellant maintained that not charging service tax in two invoices to the German Embassy did not equate to providing exempted services. The tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove the provision of exempted services by the appellant. Therefore, the tribunal held that Rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not apply, and the appellant correctly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 33,55,544.Issue 2: The second issue revolved around the eligibility of security and maintenance services availed at the Managing Director's residence for Cenvat credit. The tribunal determined that these services had no nexus with the output services provided by the appellant, citing a precedent. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the appellant was not entitled to claim Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,04,884 for these services.Issue 3: The third issue concerned the appellant's claim of Cenvat credit on vehicle chassis converted into water carts/toilet carts. The tribunal noted that these carts were not registered under the Motor Vehicle Act, rejecting the Revenue's argument that the motor vehicles did not qualify as capital goods. Accordingly, the tribunal held that the appellant rightly availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,70,490 on the converted vehicle chassis.The tribunal concluded that except for the denial of Cenvat credit on security services, the appellant succeeded on other issues. No penalty was imposed on the appellant, considering the disputed nature of the security service credit eligibility at that time. The appellant was directed to pay the amount of Cenvat credit denied on input service credit along with interest, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.