- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Bangalore-Iii v. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The assessee, holders of Central Excise Registration Certificate for manufacturing motor vehicle parts and accessories, availed Cenvat credit on Service tax paid on transportation services provided to their staff for pick up and drop from residence to factory and vice versa. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee alleging wrongful availment and utilization of input service credit on these transportation services. The assessing officer confirmed the demand. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Appeals, who rejected the appeal. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the assessee allowing the Cenvat credit. The revenue challenged the Tribunal's order by filing the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the transportation service provided to the assessee’s staff for pick up and drop from residence to factory and vice versa qualifies as an input service “in or in relation to manufacture,” directly or indirectly, under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
- Whether the Cenvat credit of the Service tax paid on such transportation services is eligible for availment and utilization under Rule 3 read with Rule 2(1) and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Stanzen Toyo-tetsu Private Limited v. C.C.E, 2009 (14) S.T.R 316 (Bangalore) | Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit on Service tax paid on transportation services provided to staff | The Tribunal relied on this decision to hold that the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit on transportation services. |
| Commissioner of Central Excise v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd., 2011 (23) S.T.R 444 (Kar.) | Definition and scope of input service under Cenvat Credit Rules; eligibility criteria for availing credit on transportation services | The Court held that transportation services facilitating employees to reach the factory directly or indirectly relate to manufacturing and qualify as input services, allowing credit. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed whether the transportation service provided to employees for commuting to the factory constituted an input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules. It reasoned that since the transportation service enables employees to reach the factory premises in time, it has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. The service is not merely a welfare measure but a basic necessity linked to manufacturing. The Court emphasized that if the service is utilized directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products or business activities, it qualifies as an input service. This interpretation was supported by the precedent in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd., which clarified the ingredients for availing such credit. Consequently, the Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.
Holding and Implications
The appeal by the revenue is dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the assessee to avail Cenvat credit on Service tax paid on transportation services for their staff.
The direct effect of this decision is that the assessee may continue to claim Cenvat credit on such transportation services. The opinion does not establish any new precedent beyond confirming the applicability of existing principles to the facts of this case.
Ravi Malimath, J.:— This appeal is by the revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid on the transportation services provided by the assessee to their staff for pick up and drop from the residence to the factory and vice-versa.
2. The assessee are holders of Central Excise Registration Certificate for manufacture of motor vehicle parts and accessories. Accordingly, the assessee is availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services. The assessee was availing Cenvat and utilizing input tax credit relating to transportation services (Rent-a-Cab Service). Hence, the show cause notice was issued to them as to why the input Service tax availed and utilized on transportation services should not be treated as wrongful availment and utilization of input service credit and the same should not recovered. The assessee replied to the same. However, the assessing officer confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals who rejected the same. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal by relying on the decision in the case of Stanzen Toyo-tetsu Private Limited v. C.C.E reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R 316 (Bangalore) held that the assessee is entitled for availment of Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid on transportation services provided to their staff. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has preferred this appeal.
4. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:—
“(1) Whether the transportation service, provided in the factory of the M/s. Tata Auto Comp. Systems Ltd., to their staff for pick up and drop from their residence to the factory and vice versa, was an input service, in or in relation to manufacture, whether directly or indirectly of the final products within the meaning and comprehension of Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
(2) Consequently whether the Cenvat credit of the Service tax, so paid for receiving the transportation services by them for pick up and drop from their residence to the factory and vice versa, was eligible for availment and utilization in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 2(1) and Rule 9 thereof?”
5. The identical question of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd., reported in C.E.A No. 96/2009 and connected matters [2011 (23) S.T.R 444 (Kar.)]. This Court took the view that the transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity. In fact, the employee is also entitled to conveyance allowance which would form part of his condition of service. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be construed as a welfare measure by denying the availment of Cenvat credit to the assessee for providing transportation facilities as a basic necessity which has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. While so holding the Court held that if the credit is availed by manufacturer then the question is what are the ingredients that are to be satisfied for availing such a credit. That the said service should have been utilized by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacturer of final products or used in relation to activities relating to business. If any of the test is satisfied then the service falls under input service and the manufacturer is eligible to avail Cenvat credit and the Service tax paid on such credit.
6. In this view of the matter, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Alert