Tribunal grants cenvat credit for hotel, designing, script writing services in landmark decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in Final Orders dated 10.10.2017 and 22.11.2017, setting aside the impugned orders and granting cenvat credit for services like Hotel Services/Mandap Keeper Services, Designing, and Script Writing Services. Relying on precedents and Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, the Tribunal held that the disputed services qualified as input services, overturning the lower authorities' decisions. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, following previous decisions permitting cenvat credit for similar services.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit for input services like designing, script writing of brochure, product catalogue, and hotel/mandap keeper services.

Analysis:
The appellant claimed cenvat credit for input services, and the Ld. Counsel cited previous Tribunal orders in favor of the appellant. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the issue pertained to the admissibility of cenvat credit for designing, script writing of brochure & product catalogue, and mandap keeper services. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and orders in the appellant's own case to support the decision.

In Final Order No. A/13001/2017 dated 10.10.2017, the Tribunal considered the eligibility of cenvat credit for services like Hotel Services/Mandap Keeper Services, Designing, and Script Writing Services. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not interpret the definition of "Input Services" correctly. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assesses based on the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, following the decision in the case of M/s Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.

In Final Order No. A/13619/2017 dated 22.11.2017, the Tribunal addressed the admissibility of cenvat credit for various services. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant referenced judgments from the Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court to support the admissibility of credit on the disputed services. The Tribunal noted that previous judgments held the service tax on disputed services eligible for credit as input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

The Tribunal concluded that based on its previous decisions allowing cenvat credit for similar services, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of the precedents and the definition of input services under the relevant rules.

---