Per : Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/37/ST-I/2015 dt. 31.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) Mumbai-I, whereby the Ld. Commissioner upholding the Order-in-Original No. KJS/R-141/2011 dt. 19.8.2011, rejected the appeal of the appellant.
2. The fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in providing Management Consultancy and Insurance Auxiliary Services. They availed Cenvat Credit on various services used in the output service. During the audit, it was found that the appellant have availed Cenvat Credit on Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent Service. The show cause notice was issued proposing disallowance of the Cenvat Credit on the ground that both these services are used for employees benefit. In the adjudication, the demand of Cenvat Credit on these two services have been confirmed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upholding the original order rejected the appeal of the appellant, therefore the appellant is before me.
3. Shri Sunil Gabhawala Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Rent-a-cab service is provided for convenience of their employee who attend the provision of service of the company. The Rent-a-cab service though excluded w.e.f. 1.4.2011 but the present case relates to the period prior to 1.4.2011 this amendment itself shows that the Rent-a-cab was an admissible input service. He further submits that on the very same Rent-a-cab service in the following judgments the Cenvat Credit has been allowed :
(i) Commissioner of C.Ex. Bangalore-I Vs. Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 578 (Kar.)
(ii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444(Kar.)
(iii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-III Vs. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd. 2012 (27) S.T.R. 338 (Kar.)
(iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. Graphite India Ltd. 2012 (27) S.T.R. 130 (Kar.)
(v) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. 2012 (25) S.T.R. 428 (Kar.)
(vi) Commr. of C.Ex. & Cus. Vs. Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. 2011 (21) S.T.R. 361 (Guj.) As regard Air Travel Agent Service he submits that these services related to purchase of Air tickets from the Air Travel Agent for the employees of the appellant . The employees travel through out the country in connection with the core business of the appellant, therefore the Air Travel Agent Service is the input service for providing output service. In respect of Air Travel Agent in the following judgments the Cenvat Credit has been allowed:
(i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Mindarika Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 309 (Tri.-Del.)
(ii) Innovasynth Technologies (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raigad 2015 (38) S.T.R. 1232 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(iii) Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Noida 2013 (32) S.T.R. 123 (Tri.-Del.)
(iv) Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T., Bangalore 2015 (37) S.T.R. 522 (Tri.-Bang.)
(v) Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Pune-I 2015 (37) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(vi) Semco Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune 2010 (18) S.T.R. 177 (Tri.-Mumbai) He further submits that in respect of both the services, the expenditures were booked in the books of accounts of the appellant as business expenditure. Even as per the accounting principal if any expenditure which is not related to the company is not permissible expenditure and the same is not allowed by the income tax authority also. He referred to the books of accounts produced by them that all the payments towards Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent Service shown as expenditure in the books of accounts for this reason both the services are input service and credit should be allowed.
4. Shri A.B.Kulgod Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service though used by employees of the appellant but undisputedly for the performance of the appellant companys business. Therefore, I am of the view that both the services are input service. This Tribunal in the various judgments cited by the Ld. Chartered Accountant allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of both the services. I am also convinced with the submission and presentation of the books of accounts by the Ld. Chartered Accountant that expenses towards Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service were booked as expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account of the appellant. I, therefore, do not find any reason why the Cenvat Credit should not be allowed on Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service to the appellant. The Rent-a-cab service was excluded from the definition of input service. Therefore prior to 01-04-2011 the Cenvat Credit was admissible. As per my above discussion, and the settled legal position, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of Rent-a-cab and Air Travel Agent services. The impugned is set aside and appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) Appeal No. ST/87299/2015
Comments