Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bangalore International Airport Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore ... on 29 October, 2024
Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017,
20289,20352/2020
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2
Service Tax Appeal No. 21313 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. BLR-EXCUS-004-COM-04-
2017-18 dated 25.05.2017 passed by Commissioner of Central
Excise & Service Tax, Bangalore).
M/s. Bangalore International Airport Ltd
BIAL, Alpha-2, Administration Block,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bengaluru,
Karnataka - 560 300. .......... Appellant
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central Excise
& Service Tax
59, HMT Bhavan Bellary Road,
Bangalore
Karnataka - 560 032. ....... Respondent
WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 20289 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2020-21 CT dated 09.06.2020 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals II), Bangalore) AND Service Tax Appeal No. 20352 of 2020 (CC Vs. Bangalore International Airport) (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2020-21 CT dated 09.06.2020 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals II), Bangalore). Appearance:
Ms. Disha Gursahaney, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. Saravana Perumal, Authorised Representative for the Revenue CORAM:
Hon'ble P.A. Augustian, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) Page 1 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 Final Order Nos. 21212-21214 /2024 Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2024 Date Of Decision: 29.10.2024 Per: P.A. Augustian The issue in the present appeal is whether the Cenvat credit on the input services availed by the Appellant are in compliance with Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The brief facts of the case are during the audit, it is observed that the services which have been claimed as input services by the Appellant were either not covered under the definition of input services or appear to have been used primarily for personal consumption by the employees and such services do not appears to fall under the definition of input services, therefore proceedings were initiated against appellant. Adjudicating authority disallowed CENVAT credit and confirmed demand of Rs. 6,51,26,496/- along with interest and also imposed penalties under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed before this Tribunal.
3. During the hearing, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the entire inputs were used only for the purpose of output services and are eligible for the CENVAT credit. The Learned Counsel further submits that the issue is no more res integra, since as per the judgment/decisions of the Tribunal in large number of cases, the Appellant is eligible for claiming CENVAT credit on such services.
4. As regarding CENVAT credit claim against Passenger Boarding Bridge (classified under CETH 9801), Bridge Mount Converter (classified Under CETH 9801) etc. and light and lighting equipment, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that benefit Page 2 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 of credit is allowed for goods imported under 'Project Imports' under Customs Tariff Chapter heading 98.01, whether the goods fall under category of inputs or capital goods. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the issue is considered in the matter of Dymos India Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Chennai-IV 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1154 (Tri. - Chennai), wherein it is held that:-
"5.3 On the second dispute involving credit amount of Rs. 1,35,27,963/-, the importation of these goods have been made under project imports for which specific Chapter Heading 98.01 exists in the Customs Tariff. Evidently, there is no corresponding entry in the Central Excise Tariff. Hence, for purposes of charging additional duty of customs (CVD) the classification of those goods under CETH will be relevant at the time of import. Thus, for a project import under CTH 98.01, the capital goods involved in the import will be necessarily classified under different CETH headings for CVD purposes. Keeping in mind this scenario, legislature has specifically inserted an Explanation to Rule 3(1) of the Rules, which clarifies that a manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed Cenvat credit of additional duty of all goods falling under CTH 98.01. The takeaway from this Explanation is that once the goods are imported under CTH 98.01, irrespective of where the goods would be classifiable under CETH, they will become eligible for availment of the CVD portion as capital goods credit. The Explanation to Rule 3(1) therefore amplifies an exception to the proceduralities of Rule 2(a) of the Rules. This being the case, it is not very relevant whether the goods should fall under CETH 94.03 as Page 3 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 argued by the Revenue or as CETH 8477 as claimed by the appellants. In any case it appears that there was a dispute on the issue of classification of the goods. The Appellant have drawn our attention to the Tribunal decision in the case of Intelligent Conveyors & Stockers Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.), where it had been inter alia held that 'Automated Vertical Storage System or Vertical Carousel Storage System would be classified as material handling equipment under CETH 8428.00 and not as furniture under CETH 9403, which decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2005 (185) E.L.T. A60 (S.C.). In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the availment of credit of Rs. 1,35,27,963/- relating to goods imported under project imports under CTH 9801."
5. The Learned Counsel further submitted that Goods imported under project imports actually were imported under the chapter heading 84 and 85 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Hence, the same qualify to be capital goods as per the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A)(viii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As regarding finding that the goods form part of the civil structure and these items are either fitted to the ground or connected to the wall/structures and they become part of the building or civil structures, Learned Counsel submitted that such conditions for availing of CENVAT credit are neither brought out in the definitions of inputs or capital goods nor in the conditions specified in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to allow the CENVAT credit. Learned Counsel relied the following decisions:
i. M/s Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Private limited v. CCE & ST, Surat - I 2020 (4) TMI 383 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD Page 4 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 ii. M/s ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited v.
Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi - II 2023 (2) TMI 895 - CESTAT NEW DELHI iii. M/s Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Gurgaon - II 2016 (44) S.T.R. 654 (Tri. - Chan.) iv. M/s JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax- Belgaum 2021 (12) TMI 381 - CESTAT BANGALORE v. M/s Omax Auto Limited v. CCE, Delhi - III 2013 (8) TMI 301-CESTAT NEW DELHI vi. M/s Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi - III 2015 (5) TMI 285 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
6. As regarding denial of CENVAT credit on professional services related to Hotel project, it is denied on the ground that these input credit availed by the Appellant in respect of Hotel project do not have any nexus with the output service provided by them and hence do not qualify to be input service, in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In this regard Learned Counsel submitted that the Expenses incurred includes professional and consultancy fees paid in relation to arbitration, feasibility study for the investment in the Hotel project. Since these are incurred to know the viability and feasibility for the investment in such project, the same should qualify to be input services. The Learned Counsel relied on the following judgment/decisions in this regard:-
i. Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. Jaipur-II 2013 (31) STR 666 (Tri-Del) ii. Vijay Mining & Infra Corp Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Hyderabad - GST 2024 (3) TMI 642 - CESTAT HYDERABAD iii. Xilinx India Tech. Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC.,CE & S.T., Hyderabad- IV, 2016 (44) STR 129 (Tri-Hyd) Page 5 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020
7. As regarding denial of CENVAT credit on Chartered Flights hired by Chairman and Managing Director, Adjudication authority denied the same on the ground that said service do not have nexus with the output services provided by the Appellant as the same is not used for providing output service, viz. Airport Service. In this regard, Learned Counsel submits that such Expenses incurred are for the business travel of Chairman/Managing Director to different places to represent the appellant. These include Board meetings, meetings with Bankers, meetings with AERA officials and MOCA officials. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the following decisions:-
1. M/s Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai -II 2017 (7) TMI 1162 - CESTAT CHENNAI
2. Force Motors Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2009 (13) S.T.R. 692 (Tri. - Mumbai)
8. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on Pinnacle Award ceremony, Adjudication authority denied the same on the ground that the said service is not used for providing any output service provided by the Appellant. The Respondent held that, the said service is only in relation to Pinnacle Awards given in recognition of excellent work performed by their business partners, which has no nexus with the output service viz.
Airport Service provided by the Appellant. In this regard, Learned Counsel submitted that Pinnacles awards are to recognize the excellence of work performed by business partners which include Airlines, Commercial Concessionaires, Operational concessionaries and authorities etc., These awards are for people from all departments including the stakeholders in order to encourage them and continue providing their support to the appellant so that the appellant's customers and passengers are well serviced. Expenses disputed here Page 6 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 are in relation to consultation charges incurred for determining list of awardees for Pinnacle awards. Since these are purely business related and not incurred for personal consumption of employees of the appellant, service tax paid on such services would be eligible for Cenvat credit availment. Further, such events are essential to ensure that the appellant meets IATA standards, which is one of the requirements as per Concessionaire agreement entered between Ministry of Civil Aviation ('MoCA') and the appellant. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the following decisions:
1. M/s Trinetra Cement Limited v. Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur 2023 (4) TMI 1012 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
2. M/s SKH Metals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Raipur 2015 (5) TMI 1003 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
3. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai [2014] 46 taxmann.com 84 (Mumbai - CESTAT)
4. M/s Ernst & Young LLP v. Commissioner of CGST, Gurugram 2022 (2) TMI 545 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
5. Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - I 2015 (40) STR 523 (Tri-Del)
9. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on sponsorship service and event management services, Adjudication authority denied the same on the ground that said services are in relation to cultural/sports/festivals organized by the Appellant for welfare of the employees and are not used for providing output service provided by the Appellant. In this regard, the Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has incurred certain expenses by extending sponsorship and event management services for the purpose of business promotion, which has a direct Page 7 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 nexus to its output services. Further, submit that these sponsorship are not in relation to any event for employees but in fact concerned to the customers and concessionaries of the appellant. Hence, such services would qualify as input service as per the definition mentioned above and the appellant would be eligible to avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the same. Further, input services with respect to events are typically for celebrating National and State functions such as Kannada Rajyotsava, Independence Day and Republic day and other events like event launch of Fly Bus, IT Infra Summit, which are not in relation to the employees and hence would be eligible as credit in the hands of the appellant. The Learned Counsel in support relied on the following decisions: -
i. Toyota Kirlsokar Motor Pvt Ltd Vs C E LTU, Bangalore 2011(24) S T R 645 (Kar) ii. M/s Arris Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax 2018 (5) TMI 560 - CESTAT BANGALORE
10. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on Photography service, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that the said service do not have any nexus with the output services provided by the Appellant. Hence, the credit taken on photography bills incurred for various events like 'Daily operation get together', 'Event of Fire Prevention Week', 'World Environment Day events 'Blood Donation Camp', 'Children Day Event' etc., does not satisfy the main clause under the definition of input service' under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and thus the credit availed is ineligible. In this regard, the Learned Counsel submitted that such services are incurred for various Page 8 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 airlines and other promotional events, Cenvat credit is available as the same is for business purposes. The Learned Counsel relied on the following decisions:-
i. Toyota Kirlsokar Motor Pvt Ltd Vs C E LTU, Bangalore 2011(24) S T R 645 (Kar) ii. Cadmach Machinery Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Ahmedabad 2013 (31) S.T.R. 33 (Tri. - Ahmd.) iii. M/s SKH Metals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Raipur 2015 (5) TMI 1003 - CESTAT NEW DELHI iv. M/s Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East
11. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on Landscaping bills relating to Trumpet flyover, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that the Appellant has undertaken landscaping activity as a part of airport activity. As per the concession agreement with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, BIAL is obliged to perform Airport and Non-Airport activities under the scope of the project, which includes landscape maintenance as part of Airport activity. Therefore, the expenses incurred for maintenance of landscaping is allowable as eligible input services. In this regard, the Learned Counsel submitted that being a Greenfield Airport the appellant is required to incur amounts on landscape maintenance, which is an essential input service. Since the amount is incurred on the cleanliness and maintenance, the same is eligible. The contentions raised by the appellant have been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority and the demand has been dropped with respect to the same to the extent of Rs. 12,32,426/-. However, remaining amount of Rs. 5,43,721/- has not been allowed, without Page 9 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 providing any reasons. The Learned Counsel drew our attention to the following decisions:-
i. M/s Gateway Terminals (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raigad 2015 (39) STR 1027 ii. M/s Caress Beauty Care Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai-
III 2015(4) TMI 363 - CESTAT Chennai iii. Cargill India Pvt Ltd Vs Comm of C Ex, Cus & ST, Bangalore-
I 2015 (38) STR 587 (Tri-Bang) iv. Huber group India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Daman 2022 (4) TMI 421 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD v. Comm of C.Ex. & ST, LTU, Chennai Vs Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd 2015 (39) STR 13 (Mad)
12. As regards the denial of CENVAT credit on immigration services, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that the Appellant has availed Cenvat credit on the bills received in respect of service fee charged towards attestation and legalization of school certificates and annual reports of Consulate's daughter and Brazil Consulate. The service involved is personal in nature and the same is not used for providing any output service provided by the Appellant. In this regard, Learned Counsel submitted that Expenses incurred is for the relocation charges of the expats, who have come to the appellant's place on business purpose and also the attestation fees for family of expats, which is incurred is in accordance to the secondment agreement entered into by the appellant. Since expenses are for business purpose, credit is eligible. The Learned Counsel relied the following decisions:- Page 10 of 17
Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 i. Pradeep Deviah and Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East 2021 3) TMI 1050 - CESTAT BANGALORE ii. M/s Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - I, Commissionerate Bangalore 2017 (6) TMI 157 - CESTAT BANGALORE
13. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on Guest House caretaker salary, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that the said services do not have any nexus with the output service provided by the assessee. The same is used for the personal benefit /consumption of the employees and hence do not qualify as input service in terms of the Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence the credit availed by the assessee is irregular. In this regard, Learned Counsel further submitted that in Appeal No. ST/21313/2017, an amount of Rs. 77,851 has already been reversed by the Appellant and hence, the same may be appropriated towards reversal required for Guest House and breakfast expenses for Carnatic Music Festival.
14. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on construction services, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that 'assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to show that service is in relation to repair/modification work and not towards original construction. In the absence of the same, the assessee's contention merits rejection. Also, it is seen from the extracts of Cenvat register submitted by the assessee at the time of audit that the said services are towards construction'. In this regard, the Learned Counsel submitted that Expenses are incurred for the repair and modification work in the Page 11 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 airport premises and not in relation to original construction or works contract, which is exempted. Since services used for repairs of premises of provider of output service is specifically included in the inclusion portion of input service definition, credit is eligible. The Learned Counsel relied the following decisions:-
i. CCE, Delhi Vs. Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (49) STR 426 (Tri.-Del.) ii. M/s Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of C. Ex., Gurgoan -II 2016 (44) S.T.R. 654 (Tri. - Chan. iii. M/s JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - Belgaum 2021 (12) TMI 381 - CESTAT BANGALORE iv. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Jubilant Biosys Ltd. 2016 (42) S.T.R. 729 (Tri. - Bang.)
15. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on Flower Decoration and other credits, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that the services in relation to Flower decoration, Hotel accommodation, Membership fees do not have any nexus with the output service provided by the appellant. They are not essential for providing output service provided by the assessee. In this regard, the Learned Counsel submitted that Expenses in this category include amount spent on delegation fees, and membership fees etc. and the input services with respect to hotel accommodation and training are with respect to business travel and training for the appellant personnel and not for their personal consumption and thus such services are incurred in relation to Page 12 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 business and are necessary in the provision of output service. The Learned Counsel relied the following decisions:-
i. M/s Xilinx India Tech. Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC.,CE & S.T., Hyderabad- IV, 2016 (44) STR 129 (Tri-Hyd) ii. M/s Netcracker Technologies Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, CE & ST Hyderabad-IV 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 10 (Tri. - Hyd.) iii. M/s Duravit India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Vadodara 2022 (5) TMI 1114 - CESTAT Ahmedabad
16. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on Mobile Command Post Vehicles, Projection Screens and Advertising Structures, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that said goods are not used for provision of output service viz. Airport Service., Adjudicating authority to support the finding held that the Appellant cannot avail the credit of duties/taxes paid in respect of the goods which are not used by them for provision of output service in as much as the provisions clearly state that only the inputs, capital goods or input services used for provision of output service are eligible for availing the Cenvat Credit. Hence, the contention of the assessee that the mobile command post vehicle falls under the definition of capital goods and the advertising structures and projection screens are used for effective operations of the business and hence not eligible for availment of Cenvat credit cannot be accepted. In this regard, the Learned Counsel submitted that it is a special purpose customized motor vehicle designed and the same is neither used to carry passengers nor goods. The vehicle is a special purpose vehicle equipped with satellite telephone and internet communication capabilities to react if the local and cellular telephone services and broadband internet are not Page 13 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 available. This is not a vehicle designed to carry passengers and goods instead is a specially designed vehicle for disaster response and recovery of assets. This kind of motor vehicle find special mention in the definition of capital goods as per Rules 2(a)(A)(viii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Learned Counsel relied on the following decisions:-
i. Commissioner of S.T., New Delhi v. Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (40) S.T.R. 417 (Del.) ii. M/s JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax- Belgaum 2021 (12) TMI 381 - CESTAT BANGALORE
17. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submitted that CENVAT credit is denied on the ground that these input service credit availed by the Appellant do not have any nexus with the output service provided by them and hence do not qualify to be input service, in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As regarding denial of CENVAT credit on Passenger Boarding Bridge (classified under CETH 9801), Bridge Mount Converter (classified Under CETH 9801) etc.. and light and lighting equipment, Learned AR draw our attention to the finding in the impugned order, where it is held that these goods are forming part of the civil structure and have been used by the Appellant for construction of building and not for providing 'Airport Services'.
Further it is held that, the 'lifts and escalators' which are fitted to the ground become part of the building i.e., immovable property and thereby do not fall under the definition of Inputs, as per Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence they are not eligible for CENVAT Credit.
Page 14 of 17
Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020
18. Heard both sides and perused the records.
19. We find that as regards Passenger Boarding Bridge (classified under CETH 9801), Bridge Mount Converter (classified Under CETH 9801) etc., and light and lighting equipment. It is an admitted fact that the said goods were imported as part of 'Project Import' and in the absence of any such conditions for availing of CENVAT credit as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as held by various authorities, the same are eligible for CENVAT credit irrespective of the fact that whether it is falling under the category of inputs or capital goods.
20. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on professional services related to Hotel project, where the Expenses incurred by the appellant includes professional and consultancy fees paid in relation to arbitration, feasibility study for the investment in the Hotel project. Since these are incurred to know the viability and feasibility for the investment in such project, the same should qualify to be input services as held in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., (supra). Similarly CENVAT credit on Chartered Flights hired by Chairman and Managing Director, CENVAT credit on Pinnacle Award ceremony, CENVAT credit on sponsorship service and event management services with respect to events (for celebrating National and State functions such as Kannada Rajyotsava, independence day), CENVAT credit on Photography service (incurred for various airlines and other promotional events), CENVAT credit partially denied by the adjudication authority on Landscaping bills relating to Trumpet flyover, which includes landscape maintenance of landscaping as part of Airport activity in a greenfield airport, CENVAT credit on immigration services incurred for relocation charges of the expats, who have come to the appellant's place on business purpose, CENVAT credit Page 15 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 on Guest House maintenance, CENVAT credit on Flower Decoration, Hotel accommodation, Membership fees, even if the said services are not directly related to output service, considering the activity of the appellant, they are required for the output service as discussed above, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit under dispute.
21. Similarly, as regards CENVAT credit on construction services, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to show that service is in relation to repair/modification work and not towards original construction. However, these services used for repairs of premises of provider of output service is specifically included in the inclusion portion of input service definition, Cenvat credit is eligible. Regarding denial of CENVAT credit on Mobile Command Post Vehicles, Projection Screens and Advertising Structures, it is a special purpose customized motor vehicle designed and the same is neither used to carry passengers nor goods. The vehicle is a special purpose vehicle equipped with satellite telephone and internet communication capabilities to react, if the local and cellular telephone services and broadband internet are not available. This is not a vehicle designed to carry passengers and goods instead is a specially designed vehicle for disaster response and recovery of assets. This kind of motor vehicle finds special mention in the definition of capital goods as per Rule 2(a)(A)(viii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
22. In view of the above discussion, even though the input services are not directly related to output service, considering the activity of the appellant, they are required for the provision of the output service by Page 16 of 17 Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21313/2017, 20289,20352/2020 the appellant as discussed above. Considering the above facts, decisions and judgments relied upon, the Appeal Nos. ST/21313/2017 and ST/20289/2020 are sustainable. As regards the Appeal No. ST/20352/2020 filed by the Department, the appeal is filed challenging the impugned order issued by Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the CENVAT credit on Sponsorship Service, Event Management and Photography Services on the ground that these services are not used for providing output service viz. Airport Service. Since the above services were also considered in detail in ibid, paras, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and we find that the Appeal No. ST/20352/2020 filed by the Department is unsustainable.
23. Accordingly, Appeal Nos. ST/21313/2017 and ST/20289/2020 are allowed. Appeal No. ST/20352/2020 filed by the Department is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in open court on 29.10.2024) (P.A. Augustian) Member (Judicial) (Pullela Nageswara Rao) Member (Technical) sasidhar Page 17 of 17