2019 (3) TMI 1363 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal granted for service tax credit on various services, including maintenance and repair.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Original that disallowed service tax credit on various services. The eligibility of credit on ... CENVAT Credit - input services - Management Maintenance and Repair Service of helicopter - Rent-a-Cab and Contract Bus Service - Management Consultancy Service - Held that:- The issue decided by the Bench by appellant own case M/S. SANMAR FOUNDRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY [2016 (4) TMI 1069 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the credit is eligible for management, maintenance and repair service of helicopter and management and consultancy service. With regard to Rent-a-Cab and Contract Bus Service, proportionate credit for the cost recovered from the employees is liable to be reversed. The credit is otherwise eligible. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:1. Wrong availment of service tax credit on Management Maintenance and Repair Service of helicopter2. Wrong availment of service tax credit on Rent-a-Cab and Contract Bus Service3. Wrong availment of service tax credit on Management Consultancy ServiceAnalysis:1. The appellant was Show Caused for the wrong availment of service tax credit on various services. The Order-in-Original confirmed the proposed disallowances, leading to the appeal. The issues had been previously decided in favor of the assessee in the appellant's own case by the Tribunal for an earlier period. The eligibility of credit on the maintenance and repair service of the helicopter was upheld based on the use for business purposes, even if not exclusively for the appellant's unit. The denial of credit based on usage not being unit-specific was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal also ruled on the eligibility of credit on Rent-a-Cab and contract bus service, directing the reversal of proportionate credit recovered from employees. The eligibility for credit on management and consultancy service was upheld, emphasizing that the consultancy provided was not disputed, and the denial based on vague allegations was unsustainable.2. During the hearing, the Ld. Advocate and Ld. AR presented their arguments, with the Advocate pointing out the previous decision in favor of the appellant by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the issues had already been considered and decided in the appellant's favor in a previous order. The AR was unable to point out any change in law or facts contrary to the previous decision. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted the same findings and set aside the impugned Order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law. The penalty was set aside as the issue was interpretative in nature.3. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the eligibility of credit on the services in question, based on previous decisions and interpretations of the law. The appellant's contentions were accepted, and the impugned Order was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.