Since the appellant is not providing output services as categorized in Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, debiting the said amount in the Cenvat account needs to be rectified by directing the appellant to debit or pay the entire amount invoked in both the appeals as service tax paid for receipt GTA services through PLA or by TR-6 challan.
The coffee machine has been maintained by the appellant for vending of coffee to its employees. It is the nature of a catering service provided to the employees which is very essential, especially for the employees working round the clock as in the case of IT companies. Therefore, repair of the coffee vending machine is an input service in or in relation to the output service provided by the appellant and, therefore, they are rightly entitled to the service tax paid on the repair of the coffee vending machine as it is an eligible input service.
3. The dispute relates to eligibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid in respect of services received in relation to ‘Repair and Maintenance’ of the staff colony relating to the period Apr.’08 to Dec.’08. Learned SDR submits that the identical issue relating to the same respondent stands decided in favour of the department in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs Grasim Industries reported in 2011 (21) S.T.R.378 (Tri.-Chennai) = (2011-IST-68-CESTAT-MAD) .
Term Input services clearly include services relating to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory. It inter-alia includes services received in connection with security. Insuring plant and machinery to safeguard against interruption/destruction/break-down and to cover loss of profit due to stoppage of work due to perils like fire, riot, terrorist attack, damages etc. is necessarily a precautionary measure to safeguard against any unwarranted situation of the business. The security of a company does not merely depend upon the physical security and insurance against such perils definitely assures the financial security of the business.
The appellants are in appeal along with a stay application directed against order-in-appeal No. PKS/224/BEL/2010 dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III. The appeal is on the ground that input service credit has been denied to the appellants on the services of travel agent which was used by the appellants for the travelling of the technicians and accountants for visiting to their job workers as per rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
In the instant case, the services rendered by the appellant were consumed abroad where the appellant’s clients used the service of inspection/test/analysis to decide whether the goods intended to be imported by them from India conformed to the requisite specifications and standards. In other words, the benefit of the service accrued to the foreign clients outside the Indian territory .
The service tax of Rs.2, 63,754/- stands confirmed against the applicant for the period from March, 2007 to September, 2007 under the category of business auxiliary services. During the said period, the applicant provided services to the client located in Nepal and got commission for finding out the customers for their Nepalese client. In addition to this, the penalty stands imposed on the applicant under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
We find that the abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 as amended is not available in the absence of such declaration/consignment note containing transaction particulars. The Commissioner has therefore rightly confirmed the demand in respect of 14 transporters. The plea of limitation also cannot be considered by the Tribunal as earlier remand order of the Tribunal does not contain any direction for reconsideration of the issue of time bar. We, therefore, uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals.
In this case, the Service Tax demand has been confirmed on the ground that the service tax payable has not been debited in the CENVAT Credit account and it has not been reflected in the ST 3 return. In view of the fact that even in the cases of clandestine removal in Central Excise matters, while confirming the demand, the benefit of CENVAT Credit, subject to verification of records that proper documents are available and raw input/capital goods have been received, the benefit of CENVAT Credit is allowed.
Tribunal had considered the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited 2005 ((190) ELT 301 before coming to the conclusion that when fabrication does not amount to manufacture, service tax is not leviable. Further, he also submits that the claim for exemption is on the ground that the contract was for construction of roads had been denied on the ground that contract was not produced.
