2017 (12) TMI 1645 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal rules Rent-a-Cab service not eligible for Cenvat credit

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II

The Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit for ... CENVAT Credit - input services - Rent-a-Cab service - period 1-4-2013 to 28-2-2014 - Held that:- There is no dispute that appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of Rent-a-Cab service, which has been excluded from the definition of input service w.e.f. 1-4-2011 as per exclusion clause in the definition of input service therefore Cenvat credit on the Rent-a-Cab service is not admissible - credit cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:- Entitlement of Cenvat credit on Rent-a-Cab service from 1-4-2013 to 28-2-2014.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case revolved around the entitlement of Cenvat credit on Rent-a-Cab service during a specific period. The appellant argued that the service was necessary for bringing staff/employees to the factory, thus linking it to the manufacture of the final product and making it eligible for credit. Reference was made to a judgment supporting this argument.2. The Revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner, contended that Rent-a-Cab service had been excluded from the definition of input service starting from 1-4-2011. Therefore, according to the exclusion clause, the credit for Rent-a-Cab service was not admissible. The Revenue relied on a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Vinati Organics Ltd. to support their stance.3. Upon evaluating the submissions from both sides, the Member (Judicial) noted that the appellant had indeed availed Cenvat credit for Rent-a-Cab service, which had been excluded from the definition of input service since 1-4-2011. Citing the exclusion clause, the Member concluded that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit for Rent-a-Cab service. The Member referenced a previous case involving Vinati Organics Ltd. where a similar view was taken. Additionally, the Member highlighted that the judgment cited by the appellant was not applicable as crucial facts regarding the nature of the motor vehicle were not on record.4. Ultimately, the Member upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Rent-a-Cab service did not qualify for Cenvat credit due to its exclusion from the definition of input service. The decision was made based on the specific legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai regarding the entitlement of Cenvat credit on Rent-a-Cab service within the specified period.