GLOBE GROUND INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd.
Commr. of C. Ex. And S.T.
Click here to view full judgement.
Ashok Jindal, Member (J) -
(1.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit on inputs/input services availed by the appellant. The facts of the case are that the appellant is providing airport services and receiving certain input services and also procured input/capital goods for providing output services. During the course of investigation, it was found that during the period March, 2006 to March, 2007, the appellant provided services to German Air Force Aircrafts/flights at IGI Airport and did not pay the Service Tax thereon. Therefore these services were presumed by the Revenue as exempted services. In that set of facts, the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant was sought to be restricted to 20% of Cenvat credit as per Rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. It was also found that during the period 2005 to 2009, security and maintenance services were provided at the residence of Managing Director of the appellant which were sought to be denied on the premise that same does not qualify as input services as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,70,490/ - was also sought to be denied on the ground that motor vehicles are not capital goods or inputs and water carts and toilet carts which were converted on vehicles chassis are not entitled for Cenvat credit. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat credit along with interest and penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 were also proposed. The show cause notice was adjudicated, demands proposed in the show cause notice were confirmed along with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were also imposed. Penalty under Section 77 of Finance Act was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me.
(2.)LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not provided any exempted service at all. In fact in two invoices issued to German Embassy, they did not charge the Service Tax. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue is not correct that they are providing exempted services. Consequently the provision of Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are also not applicable to them. He further submitted that Director of the appellant company is an employee and it is the duty of the appellant to provide security and maintenance of his premise and amount so paid by the appellant for the services provided at the residence of Managing Director is availed by the appellant in the course of their business of providing output service. Therefore, they are entitled to take Cenvat credit. Further, he submits that Cenvat credit have been denied on the ground that motor vehicle chassis has been converted to provide water carts and toilet carts, as motor vehicle is not a capital goods, therefore they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit. Intact these carts are not registered under Motor Vehicle Act and vehicle chassis were used by them for providing output services. Therefore, same are capital goods/inputs for providing input services, as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, they are entitled to take Cenvat credit.
On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned consultant and submits that services provided to German Embassy are exempted and have been very well discussed by both the lower authorities in the impugned order. Therefore, as per Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit. He further submits that the security services availed at the premises of residence of Managing Director has no nexus with the business of appellant and therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit. On motor vehicle chassis which were used by the appellant for water carts/toilet carts as these are chassis of motor vehicles and for that also he relied upon the final order on this issue.
(3.)HEARD the parties. Considered the submissions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.