AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly availed Cenvat Credit along with equal penalty and applicable interest; however, in respect of input service namely "Manpower Supply for Canteen Service", he has dropped the demand of Rs.59,57,187/-. 1.2 Since all the appeals are arising out of a common impugned order, therefore, all appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Assessee M/s Hero MotoCorp Ltd ('HMCL') was inter alia engaged in manufacture and clearance of two wheelers failing under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and spare parts thereof. The Assessee was availing the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, input services and capital goods as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR, 2004'). The department entertained the view that the Assessee was availing Cenvat Credit on certain ineligible input services, in respect of which, such credit was not admissible to the Assessee on the ground that such input services were not used for providing output services and were not used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture of final product as per Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004. 2.1 In the above background....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y appreciating the facts & the law and binding judicial precedents in the Assessee's own case for the different period. 4.1 He further refers to definition of 'input service' as provided under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 prior to 01.04.2011 and post 01.04.2011 which provides that 'input service' means any service used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products up to the place of removal. Thus, all the input services as availed by the Assessee is eligible for Cenvat Credit. He further submits that the meaning assigned to the phrase "input service" is divided in two parts; first part gives the specific meaning and the second part gives the inclusive meaning for the same. Thus, in the second part of the definition, an inclusive meaning is given to the phrase 'input service', which otherwise would not have been clearly covered in the first part. He further submits that the phrase used i.e., 'includes services' has the widest possible scope and ambit and covers all services which have even an indirect connection with the manufacturing process/ output services. He also submits that the expres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht and Clearing on Export - * Order-in-Original No. 29 to 33/AC/Demand/DivRewari/2023-24 dated 27.05.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Rewari Division in Assessee's own case * Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 75 (Tri. - Bang.)] * Commissioner Vs. Dynamic Industries Ltd., [2014 35 STR 674] * CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Fine Care Biosystems [2009 16 STR 701 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] * CCE, Rajkot Vs. Adani Pharmachem P. Ltd. [2008 (12) S.T.R. 593 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] * CCE, Madurai Vs. Stangl Pickles & Preserves [2011 (22) S.T.R. 396 (Tri. - Chennai)] * Modern Petrofils Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2010 (253) E.L.T. 609 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] * Commissioner, LTU, Chennai Vs. EID Parry India Ltd. [2016 (44) S.T.R 144 (Tri.- Chennai)] * ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore [2009 (15) STR 23 (Tri.- LB)] * Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE [2014 (35) STR 113] * Stovec Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2014 (33) STR 155] * CCE, Chennai-II Vs. Lucas TVS Ltd. [2016 (43) STR 418] * Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2014 (307) ELT 3] * Circular No.988/12/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal [2019 (369) E.L.T. 1205 (Tri. - Del.)] * Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Team Lease Services (P.) Ltd. [2014 36 STR 543] * CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd., [2011 23 STR 444] * Union of India Vs. Raipur Rotocast Ltd. [2015 37 STR 978] * Millipore India Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 22 STR 536 (Tri. Bang.)] * Samruddhi Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2014 (34) STR 592 (Tri- Delhi) * Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East Vs. Essjay Ericsson Pvt. Ltd. [(2024) 22 Centax 414 (Del.)] * Commr. of Central Tax & C. Ex., Mumbai Vs. AXIX Bank Ltd. [2019 (369) E.L.T. 583 (Bom.)] (4) Works Contract Service - * Final Order Nos. 60303-60316/2024 dated 06.06.2024 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Final Order No. 60849/2025 dated 11.07.2025 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Final Order No. 60883-60884/2025 dated 22.07.2025 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Order-in-Original No. 29 to 33/AC/Demand/DivRewari/2023-24 dated 27.05.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Rewari Divisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-in-Original No. 29 to 33/AC/Demand/DivRewari/2023-24 dated 27.05.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Rewari Division in Assessee's own case * Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore [2011 (22) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.-Bang.)] * Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. [2014 (43) GSTL 333] * Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. Lupin Ltd. [2012 (28) STR 291] * Commissioner of C. EX., Ahmedabad-II Vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (30) S.T.R. 3] * Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009 (15) STR 657] (7) Club or Association Service - * Final Order Nos. 60303-60316/2024 dated 06.06.2024 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Final Order No. 60883-60884/2025 dated 22.07.2025 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Order-in-Original No. 29 to 33/AC/Demand/DivRewari/2023-24 dated 27.05.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Rewari Division in Assessee's own case * Fidelity Business Services India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East [2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 315 (Tri. - Bang.)] * Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 2016] * Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Fiamm Minda Automotive Ltd. [2016 (55) GSTL 270] * Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2012 (276) ELT 94] * Ahmednagar Forging Ltd. Vs. CCE [2011 (23) STR 261] * Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Visakhapatnam-I Vs. GMR Industries Ltd. [2015 (38) S.T.R. 509] * Electronic Arts Games India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., Hyderabad [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 149] * Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat Vs. Haubach Colour (P.) Ltd. [2016 (53) GSTL 334] * Usha Martin Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Ludhiana [2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 220] * Cross Tab Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of CGST, Mumbai East [2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 29] * Commr. of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. [2009 (16) S.T.R. 410] * Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus., Guntur Vs. Madhu Steels [2009 (14) S.T.R. 798] (10) Repairing Motor Vehicle - * Final Order Nos. 60303-60316/2024 dated 06.06.2024 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Final Order No. 60883-60884/2025 dated 22.07.2025 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- * Final Order Nos. 60303-60316/2024 dated 06.06.2024 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Final Order No. 60849/2025 dated 11.07.2025 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Final Order No. 60883-60884/2025 dated 22.07.2025 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh in Assessee's own case * Order-in-Original No. 29 to 33/AC/Demand/DivRewari/2023-24 dated 27.05.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Rewari Division in Assessee's own case * Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore [2011 (22) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.-Bang.)] * Nvidia Graphics Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2016 SCC OnLine CESTAT 4508] * Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018 SCC OnLine CESTAT 3596] * Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2011 (24) STR 491 (Tri. Bang.)] * Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-III [2017 (47) STR 273] * J.P Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T. Mumbai [2016 (42) STR 196] * Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. Lupin Ltd. [2012 (28) STR 291 (Tri. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the SCNs making them non-maintainable in law, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Swastik Tin Works Vs. CCE, Kanpur [1986 (25) ELT 798]. He also submits that before issuance of a SCN, the Commissioner has to be fully satisfied that the case is maintainable against the Assessee, and it is not that a SCN has to be issued mechanically merely because Audit has pointed out the same as held by the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd Vs. CCE [2011 (22) STR 121]. 4.7 He further submits that the department was well aware that Assessee was availing Cenvat Credit on the subject input services since six SCNs for the period 2004-05 to 2011-12 have been earlier issued and adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. Therefore, the allegation made in the present SCNs that the Assessee has suppressed the facts with an intent to evade payment of duty is completely bad in law in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)]. Thus, in the absence of any fraud or collusion or suppression, the penalty provisions cannot be invoked. In this regard, he rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, we set the same and allow the appeals of the Assessee. ❖ Now, we take up the appeal (viz. E/60604/2013) filed by the Revenue. 11. We find that the learned Commissioner has allowed the Cenvat Credit on 'Manpower Supply for Canteen Services' on the ground that the Assessee has to provide the canteen services as they have more than 250 workers in their factory and under the provisions of Factories Act, 1948, the Manpower Supply for managing/preparing canteen services are mandatory requirement by the Assessee. The only argument of the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue is that the said service does not fall within the definition of 'input service' as provided under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The learned Authorized Representative has submitted that the impugned order, relying upon the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. M/s GTC Industries Ltd [2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri. LB)] is not a correct appreciation of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Tribunal. We find that the learned Commissioner has rightly relied upon the said decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal. In the said case, the Larger Bench of Tribunal has held that....