SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT
Bonfiglioli Transmissions (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -Respondent
Final Order No. 1029/2011 appeal no. E/69/2011
Decided On : 23-08-2011

Advocates Appeared:
Joseph Prabhakar,Joseph Prabhakar

ORDER

1. Credit of Rs.2,52,716/- has been disallowed to the assessees herein on 'Rent-a-Cab service' on the ground that the service had no nexus with the manufacturing activity. In addition, a penalty of Rs.1,000/- has been imposed.

2. I have heard both sides and find merit in the submission of the assessees that credit is admissible in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 holding that credit is admissible on 'Outdoor Catering Service', as there is no dispute that the assessees herein utilised the service for transportation of their employees from their residence to their company for official work. However, the aspect as to whether any amount was recovered from the employees for providing transportation is to be looked into, in the light of the same judgment wherein the court has held that if the company has collected any amount from the employees towards cost of food, then proportionate credit is required to be reversed.

3. Therefore, while holding that credit is admissible to the assessees on the service in question, the impugned order is set aside and the case remitted to the adjudicating authority to ascertain whether any amount has been recovered from the employee or the worker towards transportation charges and if so, credit to that extent is not admissible. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top