2018 (12) TMI 1159 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – rent-a-cab service – period from January 2011 to March 2013 – Held that:- The appellant has not produced any evidence to establish that the motor vehicles are capital goods for the service provider for the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2013, the credit is ineligible and the demand for the said period is therefore upheld.
–
Penalties – Held that:- The issue is interpretational and also transitional period, penalty imposed are unjustified.
–
Appeal allowed in part. – Appeal Nos. E/41397 And 41398/2018 – Final Order Nos. 43081-43082 / 2018 – Dated:- 12-12-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) For The Appellant : Shri R. Rajesh, Authorized Rep. For T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ervices has been rightly availed. It is also submitted by him that even though Clause B of the definition of input services excludes the services provided by the motor vehicle service provider, it is difficult for the service recipient to verify whether the motor vehicles are capital goods for the service provider. He submitted that the issue being interpretational and also during transitional period, when the amendment was introduced to the definition of input services, he pleaded that the penalties may be waived. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that for the first three months upto 31.3.2011, the appellant is eligible for credit. Thereafter, the definition of input services has be
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
otor vehicles and the said credit would be eligible only if the motor vehicles are capital goods for the service provider. This Tribunal in the case of Sundaram Clayton Ltd. vide Final Order No. 41952/2018 dated 9.7.2018 has discussed the issue in detail. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has not produced any evidence to establish that the motor vehicles are capital goods for the service provider for the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2013, I am of the view that credit is ineligible and the demand for the said period is therefore upheld. 6. The appellant has also pleaded to waive the penalties. Taking into consideration the fact that the issue is interpretational and also transitional period, I am of the view that the pena
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =