Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hapag Lloyd Global Services Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Central Goods And Service ... on 18 November, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Service Tax Appeal No. 86647 of 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. DL/258/APPEALS THANE/TH/2021-22 dated
18.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals),
Thane.)
M/s Hapag-Lloyd Global Services Pvt. Ltd. ........Appellant
Unit No. 402 & 403, Dosti Pinnacle,
Plot No. E-7, Road No. 22,
Wagle Industrial Estate,
Thane (West) - 400 604
VERSUS
Commissioner of CGST, Thane ........Respondent
rd th 3 & 5 Floor, Accel House, Road No. 22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane - 400 604 APPERANCE:
Shri Ranjeet Mahtani, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 86834/2025 Date of Hearing: 18.11.2025 Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 Appeal is heard from both the sides and taken up for order.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that they are engaged in exporting services and they sought for refund of input services.
Denying some of those inputs, show-cause notice was issued under Rule, 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that suffered adjudication process and ultimately travelled up to the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed all of the credit except rent-a-cab service solely on the ground that amendment made w.e.f. April, 2011 has excluded the same from the purview of definition of 'input service'. In placing ST/86647/2022 2 reliance on Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II reported in 2016 (46) STR 754 (Tri.-Mumbai), in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vadodara Vs. Transpek Industry Limited as reported in 2018 (12) GSTL 29 (Guj.) and DBOI Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, reported in 2017 (48) STR 157 (Tri.-Mumbai), he further submits that rent-a-cab service availed for travel of employees in connection with manufacturing / service activities are eligible CENVAT Credit as the entire demand from April, 2005 to March, 2011 was for the prior period before amendment was given effect. He also challenged the legality of confirmation of penalty and interest on the amount of ₹9,04,827/- that was demanded, being availed against rent-a-cab input service.
3. Learned Authorised Representative objects to such submission. He argued in favour of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that there was no express provision available in the definition prior to 2011 to cover rent-a-cab as one of the input services and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) need not be interference by the Tribunal.
4. I have gone through the case record, submissions made by the adversaries and the relied upon decisions. At the outset, it is to be placed on record that rent-a-cab has been excluded from the definition of input service w.e.f. April 1st, 2011 but prior to that, though it was not expressly mentioned in the definition, judicial precedent on renting supports such availment of services on rent-a-cab if the travel was made by the employees of the Assessee in furtherance of their manufacturing/business or service activities. The gist of findings of Commissioner (Appeals), as could be noticed from relevant portion of para 10, which is reproduced below, would go to show that under the impression that such exclusion from the definition of input service has its effect retrospectively, the findings as stated above was given. Relevant portion of Para 10 reads:
"It is the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent failed to appreciate that the invoices submitted for rent-a-cab service specifically ST/86647/2022 3 mention the name of the Appellant as the service recipient and hence it cannot be said that these services have been used by the employees for non- business purpose or are not required by the Appellant for providing its output service. Reliance was interalia among various case laws placed in the case of Ultratech Cement v Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II [2016 (46) STR 754 (Tri. Mumbai). However, since rent-a-cab service has been excluded from the definition of input service by the 2011 amendment wef. 2011 and prior to that it was within the definition of input (service. I am constrained to disallow the same."
5. Going by the above observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals), it can very well be said that the only ground of rejection of the submissions of Appellant made before him, so as to disallow input credits on rent-a-cab service, was that in the amendment made in 2011 rent-a-cab service has been excluded from the definition of 'inputs service'. This being so, when plethora of decisions are in favour of such availment prior to such amendment, there is no reason why Appellant shall be denied in getting the same benefit since its submission to the effect that Appellant had used such services for its employees for business purposes was being exhibited by production of invoices. Hence in carrying forward the judicial precedent set by this Tribunal, the following order is passed.
THE ORDER
6. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), Thane to the extent of denial of input credit of ₹9,04,827/- towards rent-a-cab service vide his Order- in-Appeal No. DL/258/APPEALS THANE/TH/2021-22 dated 18.02.2022 is hereby set aside with consequential relief.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial) Prasad