Nayara Energy Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitle for Cenvat Credit in respect of following Services:
I. Air Civil Enclave Services
II. Authorized Service Station Service.
III. Mandap Keeper Service.
IV. Outdoor Caterer Service.
V. Rent-a-Cab Operator’s Service.
VI. Tour Operator Service.
VII. Travel Agent Service.
VIII. Renting of Immovable Service
IX. Convention Service.
X. Company Secretary Service.
XI. Steamer Agent Service.
XII. Telecommunication Service.
1.1 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order disallowed the credit in respect of above Services mainly on the ground that the appellant could not establish the nexus between the said services and appellant’s manufacturing/business activity. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of some services allowed the Cenvat Credit in principle but due to non-availability of invoice/ledger invoice rejected the Cenvat Credit.
2. Mrs. Dimple Gohil, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that in respect of all these services, the invoices were issued in the name of the appellant. All these services were used either in relation to manufacturing activity of the appellant or related to business activity. Therefore, it is clearly covered under the definition of Input Service as provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 at the relevant period i.e. June- 2008 to February-2009. She relied upon various judgments submitting that the Cenvat Credit in respect of all these services in question has been allowed in one or more judgments:-
