TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeals granted for CENVAT Credit on input services, based on judicial precedents.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, granting CENVAT Credit on various input services including Telephone Service, GTA, Security ... CENVAT Credit - various input services - Telephone Services - GTA/Courier Services - Security Services - Works Contract Services - ISD invoices - Vehicle Maintenance Services - Consultancy Services - Catering Services/Tea expenses - Held that:- The issues have been decided at various levels and the same are more or less settled which is also applicable to the period after 01.04.2011 - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved:Appeal against denial of CENVAT Credit on input services including Telephone Service, GTA, Security Service, ISD Invoices, Works Contract Service, Consultancy Service, Vehicle Maintenance Service, and Catering Service.Analysis:1. Telephone Service: The appellant argued that CENVAT Credit on Telephone Service is eligible as per Rule 2(l) for carrying out promotional activities of finished goods. Citing precedents like C.C.E., S.T. & Cus., Bangalore-II Vs. J. K. Fabrics, the appellant contended for eligibility.2. GTA/Courier Service: The appellant reversed CENVAT Credit on outward freight, relying on decisions like Commissioner of C.Ex., Belgaum Vs. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. to support their case.3. Security Services: The appellant justified availing security services to protect goods stored at a specific unit, citing cases like Commr. of C.Ex. & Cus., Guntur Vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.4. Works Contract: The appellant argued for eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Works Contract for maintenance works, citing cases like UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry.5. ISD Invoices: The Revenue contended that services on ISD invoices were not eligible as input services. The appellant argued for eligibility under Rule 7 of CCR, citing cases like Castrol India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.,Vapi.6. Vehicle Maintenance Service: The appellant supported availing CENVAT Credit on maintenance of vehicles used for transportation, citing cases like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.,C. & S.T., Visakhapatnam.7. Consultancy Services: The appellant argued for eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Civil Consultancy Services, citing cases like Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Bangalore.8. Catering Services/Tea Expenses: The appellant justified CENVAT Credit for catering services for employees during office hours, citing cases like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Visakhapatnam-I.The Tribunal found that the issues were settled and allowed the appeals based on judicial precedents applicable post-01.04.2011, granting consequential benefits as per law. The judgment was pronounced on 07.12.2018.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
