https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335108 The case involved the interpretation of the definition of input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, specifically regarding services provided by renting motor vehicles. The appellate authority denied the manufacturer's claim for Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for renting motor vehicles, citing that motor vehicles were not considered capital goods for the manufacturer. However, Ms. Archana Wadhwa overturned this decision, ruling that the status of a motor vehicle as a capital good should be assessed based on the service provider, not the recipient. Consequently, the manufacturer was granted Cenvat Credit for renting motor vehicles, with the appeal being allowed in favor of the manufacturer. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335108 The case involved the interpretation of the definition of input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, specifically regarding services provided by renting motor vehicles. The appellate authority denied the manufacturer's claim for Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for renting motor vehicles, citing that motor vehicles were not considered capital goods for the manufacturer. However, Ms. Archana Wadhwa overturned this decision, ruling that the status of a motor vehicle as a capital good should be assessed based on the service provider, not the recipient. Consequently, the manufacturer was granted Cenvat Credit for renting motor vehicles, with the appeal being allowed in favor of the manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335108