Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Devender Singh, Jt. Cdr For The vs Shri Vineet K. Singh, Advocate For The on 18 July, 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. IV Date of hearing/decision: 18.07.2014 For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Service Tax Appeal No.52778 of 2014 (Arising out of order in appeal No. 664/SVS/PKL/2013 dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-III) CCE, Panchkula Revenue Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Respondent-assessee
Appearance:
Shri Devender Singh, Jt. CDR for the appellant Shri Vineet K. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent- assessee Coram: Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52867/ 2014 Per: R. K. Singh:
This appeal is preferred by the Department against Order-in-Appeal No. 664/SVS/PKL/2013 dated 13.12.2013 in terms of which the appellate authority allowed cenvat credit of the service tax paid on rent-a-cab service during the period October, 2009 to September, 2010.
2. Learned Jt. CDR points out that on similar issue for a different period an earlier appeal No. ST/688/2009-CU (DB) against order-in-appeal No.25/ST/PKL/2009 dated 04.06.2009 is pending before the Division Bench of this very Tribunal and therefore, this appeal should be linked with that. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the issue may not be identical and therefore this appeal should be decided.
3. Essentially the Revenues appeal is on the ground that the rented cabs were not exclusively used for the purpose of providing output service.
4. I have gone through the facts of the case. I find that in the order-in-appeal the appellate authority has categorically stated as under:
I observe that the appellant had submitted before the original authority and during appeal proceedings that they are providing output services and the vehicles hired by them are used for maintenance/ installation, repair and technical inspection of exchanges and its network which can be verified from the logbooks maintained by them. Further, they have also submitted that they have their own vehicles for attending the official work for their officers who do not use the hired vehicles for attending office. I find that these services are closely related to the providing of output services, i.e. Telecommunication service, which, are covered by the definition of input service. Further, to exclude Rent-a-cab services from the purview of input service, it has to be established as to whether the said service was used for purposes other than that of company business. The appellant had clearly stated in their submission that these services were availed by them for carrying out the business providing output services. I find nothing contrary to the submissions given by the appellant from the Department side. Therefore, order confirming demand of credit availed by the appellant is not sustainable.
5. Thus, I find that the Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the cabs in respect of which credit has been taken were used for providing output service which would clearly make the impugned credit admissible. In the grounds of appeal submitted by the Department they have merely stated that the impugned cabs were not exclusively used for the purpose of maintenance etc. but have not given any evidence to that effect. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that Revenue had not given any evidence contrary to the submissions of the appellants. Learned Advocate referred to the judgment in cases of Commissioner vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 566 (Bom.) which essentially conveyed that the definition of input service needs to be interpreted liberally.
6. I find that in the present case, as discussed above Revenue has not produced any evidence to the effect that the observation in the impugned order-in-appeal are factually incorrect nor have they produced any evidence in support of the ground on which this appeal has been filed.
7. In view of the foregoing, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, Revenues appeal is rejected.
(R. K. Singh) Member (Technical) Pant