Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s Titan Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore- I Commissioner Ate (CESTAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : E/Stay/1137/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/12/2010
Related Assessment Year :

‘Rent-a-cab’ services utilized by the appellants for transportation of food articles from centralized canteen to appellant’s current factory premises needs to be gone into in detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. On a specific query from the bench, the authorized representative submits that the amount involved is approximately Rs. 8,000/-.

In view of this, in my considered opinion, the applicant needs to be put to some condition for hearing and disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, I direct the applicant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) within two weeks from today and report compliance to Assistant Registrar on 22nd December 2010 . On such compliance being reported, the application for waiver of the pre-deposit of balance amounts is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal.

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

E/Stay/1137/2010
E/1924/2010

M/s TITAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
BANGALORE- I COMMISSIONER ATE

Date of Decision: 01.12.2010

STAY ORDER NO. 924/2010

Per: M V Ravindran (Oral):

This stay petition is filed by the assessee for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs.54,343/- and interest thereon and penalty as imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the learned Commissioner (A).

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The demand has arisen on the ground that the appellant/applicant had availed ineligible cenvat credit of the input services paid on ‘rent-a-cab’ services.

4. Learned Shri Ramakrishnan, authorized representative of the applicant submits that ‘rent-a-cab’ services were utilized by them for transporting of their personnel from their place of residence to the factory premises. He would submit that various decisions of this bench on this issue squarely covers the matter in their favour.

5. The learned departmental representative on the other hand would submit that the order of the learned Commissioner (A) is correct and the interpretation of the definition of input services as given in rule 2 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules needs to be gone into in proper perspective. It is his submission that ‘rent-a-cab’ services are provided for transportation of the people but the applicants have not produced any evidence regarding inclusion of this expenses in the CAS-4 in order to given them the benefit. It is also his submission that ‘rent-a-cab’ services were utilized also for transportation of food articles from centralized canteen to factory premises.

6. The authorized representative for the applicant submits that they have got centralized canteen wherein food for the entire organization is prepared and they transport the said food from centralized canteen to the factory premises for distribution to their employees.

7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. As regards cenvat credit on input services, tax paid on the ‘rent-a-cab’ services, etc., I find that this bench has been taking a consistent view that such cenvat credit cannot be denied. The first decision in this regard is M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-III – 2009 (14) STR 316 (Tri.-Bang.) = ( 2009-IST-284-CESTAT-BANG) and which has been followed in various decisions holding that the appellant is eligible for availment of cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the ‘rent-a-cab’ service provider.

7.1 I find that ‘rent-a-cab’ services utilized by the appellants for transportation of food articles from centralized canteen to appellant’s current factory premises needs to be gone into in detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. On a specific query from the bench, the authorized representative submits that the amount involved is approximately Rs.8,000/-. In view of this, in my considered opinion, the applicant needs to be put to some condition for hearing and disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, I direct the applicant to pre- deposit an amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) within two weeks from today and report compliance to Assistant Registrar on 22nd December 2010 . On such compliance being reported, the application for waiver of the pre- deposit of balance amounts is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal.

(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
June 2024
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930