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>Tribunal Grants Cenvat Credit on Input Services: Rent a Cab, Courier, Mandap, Catering</h1> <h3>M/s. Wipro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry</h3> The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of Cenvat credit on input services like Rent a Cab, Courier service, Mandap keeper service, and ... CENVAT credit - input services - Rent a cab service - Courier service - Mandap keeper service - Catering service - Held that: - any activity relating to business of manufacture would fall within the definition of input service. Rent a Cab services were availed for picking up and dropping of the employees of the company - catering services were used for providing Canteen facilities for the employees. These services were not excluded prior to 01.04.2011 - Mandap keeper services were availed to conduct the programs of the Company - Courier services were availed for the dispatch of the goods upto the depot or to dispatch the goods directly to the customer’s premises. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Availing Cenvat credit on various input services like Rent a Cab, Courier service, Mandap keeper service, and Catering service.- Denial of Cenvat credit, recovery of wrongly availed credit, interest, and penalties.- Applicability of input service definition prior to December 2008.- Arguments regarding the purpose and eligibility of availed services.- Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and circulars.- Analysis of the period involved for different input services.- Decision on the eligibility of credit for services availed.Analysis:The case involved manufacturers availing Cenvat credit on input services such as Rent a Cab, Courier service, Mandap keeper service, and Catering service. The authorities proposed to deny the credit, recover wrongly availed amounts, and impose penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that services were used for specific purposes, citing legal precedents and circulars to support their claims.Regarding the period involved, the definition of input service was crucial. The judgment referenced the period before April 2011 when the definition included 'activities relating to business.' Legal precedents, such as the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd., were cited to analyze the scope of this definition. The appellant's arguments focused on the purpose of availed services, emphasizing that they were not excluded before April 2011.Specifically, Rent a Cab services were used for employee transportation, catering services for canteen facilities, Mandap keeper services for conducting programs, and Courier services for goods delivery. The judgment considered the period involved for each service, applying legal interpretations and precedents to determine credit eligibility. For instance, the amendment in the definition of input service regarding goods delivery was crucial for Courier services before April 2008.Ultimately, the tribunal held that denial of credit on the mentioned services was unjustified. Citing legal precedents like M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the disallowance of credit on the specified services. The decision was based on the eligibility of services availed and the legal framework applicable during the relevant periods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
