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>Appeal granted for input services under CENVAT Credit Rules</h1> <h3>M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I</h3> M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I - TMI Issues:- Disallowance of CENVAT credit on various input services by Commissioner (A) under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.- Appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 10.7.2014.- Applicability of input services definition as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules.- Submission of documentary evidence to substantiate the claim.Analysis:The case involves an appeal against the Commissioner (A)'s order disallowing CENVAT credit on certain input services availed by the appellant, a manufacturer of digital panel meters and energy meters. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit of Rs. 11,66,135/- on Service Tax paid on various input services, which the authorities found irregular as not covered under the definition of input services as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal.During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the disallowed services indeed qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) and cited relevant case laws to support their claim. The services in question included AMC services for furniture, fixtures, and climate charges, associate membership fees, building architect services, erection, commissioning, and installation charges, as well as charges for floor tiles, electrical fittings, photocopier lease, foreign transactions, among others. The appellant contended that these services were essential for manufacturing activities and had been recognized as input services in previous judgments.The appellant highlighted that they had provided documentary evidence to support their claim, which the Commissioner (A) allegedly did not consider adequately. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (A) failed to acknowledge the relevance of the provided documents, including challans, computation statements, and sample bills. In contrast, the appellant emphasized that the input services disallowed for CENVAT credit were in line with the definition of input services and had been upheld as such in previous judicial decisions.Upon reviewing the submissions and case laws presented by the appellant, the Judicial Member found merit in the appellant's arguments. The Judicial Member noted that the disallowed input services fell within the definition of 'input service' as explained in the case laws cited by the appellant. Consequently, the Judicial Member allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents where necessary. The decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment based on the provided evidence and the established definition of input services, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of aligning decisions with legal provisions and judicial precedents to uphold the rights of taxpayers in availing CENVAT credit on legitimate input services. The detailed analysis and consideration of relevant case laws played a crucial role in overturning the disallowance of CENVAT credit, highlighting the significance of substantiating claims with appropriate documentation in tax-related matters.
TaxTMI 