TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h were distributed by their corporate office who are registered as Input Service Distributor [ISD] Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued and the proceedings were dropped by the impugned order. 3. Shri Bhagwat Dayal, learned authorized representative for the revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the corporate office of the respondent has distributed CENVAT credit on input services availed by them in respect of a chartered aircraft; IFSAL, the supplier of the chartered aircraft is supported by JSPL; JSPL is paying a fee for minimum assured flying hours to M/s IFSAL even though the aircraft is not used; M/s JSPL did not produce the details/documentary evidence of the actual flying for JSPL; the adjudicating authority has erred in allowing such credit. 4. Learned authorized representative further submits that with effect from 01.04.2011, the inclusive part of the definition has been changed by deleting the services relating to 'activities relating to business'; no proof was produced by the respondent to show that the expenditure incurred such service formed part of cost of production. He further submits that the adjudicating authority has erred in allowi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stributed to the Raigarh unit; the adjudicating authority verified all the documents and did not find any discrepancies. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the question of eligibility of credit in terms of Rule 2(l) is raised only in the grounds of appeal and was not raised in the show cause notice; the adjudicating authority has given a categorical finding that the services in question are inevitable and integral part of production activity. He relies on Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Commissionerate 2022 [(56 GSTL 22 (Tri-Hyd)] and submits that in terms of the first limb of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) covers any activity in or in relation to manufacture. He also relies on Collector of Central Excise vs Solaris Chemtech Limited 2007 [(214) ELT 481 (SC)] and JK Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd vs Sales Tax Officer 1997 [(91) ELT 34 (SC)]. He submits, without prejudice to the above, that the said expenditure is included in the cost of production as per CAS-4 read with CAS-3/CAS-11 and, therefore, the respondent is eligible for credit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent. Coming to the first issue, department seeks to deny the CENVAT credit of Rs. 5,24,71,463/- availed by the respondent on the services of a supplier of chartered aircraft after the credit was distributed by their corporate office, i.e. ISD. Revenue seeks to deny the CENVAT credit on two grounds, i.e., (i). after 01.04.2011 the definition of input service has undergone a change with the removal of the words 'activities relating to business' and accordingly the credit of services used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture and clearance of final products is only admissible. Revenue also seeks to deny the CENVAT credit on the ground that documents evidencing the usage of the services of the chartered flight by the respondent company at Raigarh are not coming forth. 11. We find that the issue of admissibility of credit of various services even after 01.04.2011 has come before the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd (supra). The Bench held that: "15. The department wants to deny them the benefir of the CENVAT credit on the ground the 'services related to setting up of a facto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the word "manufacturer" shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account. 20. Thus, the term 'manufacture' itself is very wide and includes anything incidental or ancillary to manufacture. 21. for a service to quality as input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 post 2011, the service in question need not be covered even by the very wide definition of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Any service which is used not only in manufacture but also in relation to manufacture will also quality as input service. The scope of input service is further enlarged with the expression whether directly or indirectly used in the definition of input service. Thus, there are : (a) Actual manufacture; (b) Processes incidental or ancillary to manufacture which are also manufacture; (c) Activities directly in relation to manufacture (i.e., in relation to 'a' and "b' above); (d) Activities indirectly in relation to manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees/Director. Inasmuch as it is the appellant who had paid for said air travel, it has to be held that the air travel was undertaken in connection with the business of the appellant company. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant." 4.4 In case of Carrier Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. [2016 (41). S.T.R. 824 (Tri. - Chan.)] Chandigarh Bench held as follows: *8. In the case of Travel Agent Service, It is pleaded that these were in relation to travel for the purpose of business meetings, sales, advertisement, recruitment, training, etc. It does not come out from the impugned order as to how it was not covered under the definition of BAS. In the case of Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. v. CCE - 2013 (32) S.T.R. 123 (Tri.-Del.), Jindal Pipes Ltd. v. CCE - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 588 (Tri.-Del.), Emcon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 441 (Tri.-Bang.) it has been held that such travel agent service is clearly covered under the scope of input service for the purpose of Cenvat credit..... 4.5 In case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co Ltd. [2017 (48) S.T.R. 88 (Tri. - Chennai)] Chennai Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... basis of debit note which did not contain any detail as required under the statute. We have perused the debit notes which are annexed at pages 22, 23, 24 & 25 of the appeal memo. The said debit notes have been issued by M/s. SSKI Corporate Finance Pvt Ltd. We find that the said M/s. SSKI has specifically indicated the rate of service tax paid by them, and service tax Registration No. in their invoice. It is also seen that M/s. SSKI has issued the invoices addressed to Head Office at Bombay of appellant. There is no dispute as to services rendered by SSKI to the appellant at Head Office. Appellant's head office has transferred the Cenvat credit of service tax paid by M/s. SSKI, as an input service distributor is also not disputed. 6. In our considered view, the head office of the appellant, being a registered ISD is eligible to distribute service tax credit to any of their units/factory. On a specific query from the Bench, learned departmental representative informed that there was no proposal or proposition to issue show-cause notice to the input service distributor for wrong availment of Cenvat credit. 7. We find that the view or conclusion arrived at by the low....