2018 (1) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edicaments. CENVAT credit on the aforementioned services was objected as it appeared to revenue that the aforementioned services do not fall under the category of 'input service' as defined under Rule 2(l)(ii) of CCR, inasmuch as the said services are not used by the appellant, directly or indirectly, in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance of the final product up to the place of removal. 3. The show-cause notice was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demands confirmed, aggregating Rs. 2,08,442/- along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved the appellant had preferred appeal before learned Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oval. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that the issue is no longer res integra and the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nashik - 2015 (38) STR 129 (Tri.-Mumbai.) wherein held that CBE & C Circular No.943/4/2011-CX, dated 29.04.2011 specifically used words such as "used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee." Cost of outdoor catering service used in relation to business activities for MS Part of cost of final product, which fact remains un-rebutted by Department. Cost of such services admittedly is borne by manufacturer-assessee and not by employee and CENVAT credit has not deniable. The period involved in the appeal December, 2011 to December, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....capital goods for the appellant, Cenvat Credit availed on the input services of renting of motor vehicle would not be admissible. 6. However, I find flaw in the above interpretation of appellate authority. He has observed- A person who is receiving the input services of renting of immovable property, can never avail cenvat credit of duty paid on the motor vehicles and as such motor vehicle can never be a capital good to the recipient of the said services. The motor vehicle will always be a capital good or otherwise for the person who is providing the services. For service provider falling under the category of renting of motor vehicle the motor vehicle would always be a capital good. As such the expression- "which is not a capital good app....