Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sungwoo Gestamp Hitech India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Amp;Cce(Chennai ... on 28 June, 2018
THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/40082/2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 215/2017 (CTA-II) dated
31.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise
(Appeals-II), Chennai)
M/s. Sungwoo Gestamp Hitech India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CGST & CE, Chennai Outer Respondent
Appearance Ms. P. Srija, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 28.06.2018 Final Order No. ___41977_/2018 The brief facts are that M/s. Sungwoo Gestamp Hitech India Ltd., the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of 'Automobile Parts and Seats parts" and are availing Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. On verification of records it was found that the appellant had availed 'Rent-a-Cab' services for the staff/employees working in the office/factory. They have also availed the input service credit of the service tax paid to the extent of Rs. 4,34,257/- during the period from January 2011 to March 2011 and utilized the same. Department 2 was of the view that the appellant is not eligible to avail the Cenvat credit on Rent-a-cab services availed by them and SCN was issued proposing to recover the wrongly availed Cenvat credit alleging that the same is ineligible under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A of the CEA, 1944, along with appropriate interest and imposition of penalty. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority disallowed the same alleging that it was wrongly availed for the above period and also levied applicable interest and penalty. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the denial of Cenvat credit, but set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this forum.
2. Heard Ms. P. Srija, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Revenue.
3. It was argued by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that Cenvat credit was denied on Rent-a-Cab services that was availed for transportation of staff/employees of the appellant firm on the ground that these services do not qualify as input services, as per Rule 2 (l) of the CCR, 2004, since this Rule was amended with effect from 01.04.2011. This Rule provides for certain exclusions and Cenvat credit in respect of services specifically excluded from the definition of input services could not be claimed by the provider of taxable services of manufacture of excisable goods. But, the period involved in this appeal is prior to 01.04.2011 and hence, the impugned services are very much eligible input services and therefore Cenvat credit on Rent-a-Cab service cannot 3 be denied to the appellants. She has relied on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi Vs. Capsugel Healthcare Ltd. - 2016 (44) STR 101 (Tri.-Chan.) in support of her contentions.
3. On behalf of Revenue, Ld. AR supported the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. On perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Capsugel healthcare Ltd. (supra) relied on by the Ld. Advocate, it is seen that the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon''ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) wherein, it has held that Rent-a-Cab services availed by the assessee for the employees bringing them from their residence to factory or vice versa, qualifies as input services. By following the ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal, I hold that prior to 01.04.2011, Rent-a-Cab services are eligible input services and Cenvat credit cannot be denied on these input services. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court) (P.DINESHA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) BB