Rohit Surfactant Pvt Ltd Versus CGST, C.C & C. E-UJJAIN
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 741 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 11-9-2018
E\/50972\/2018-SMC, E\/51575\/2018-SMC, E\/51576\/2018-SMC And E\/51577\/2018-SMC – Final Order No. 52932-52935\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Appellant : Sh. R.K. Ambwani, Consultant
\nFor the Respondent : Sh. K. Poddar, P. Juneja, DR
\nORDER
\nPER: V. PADMANABHAN
\n1. The issue involved in these four appeals is identical and hence these appeals are decided through this common order. These appeals cover the disputed period from April, 2011 till June, 2015. The appellant has several manufacturing units situated at different parts of the county a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n cisions, the appeals stand filed before the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n pecified in Rule 2 (l) (C). This exclusion clause disallows the Cenvat Credit in respect of certain specified services such as Membership of Club, Life Insurance etc when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee. Upon perusal of some of the sample invoices furnished by the Ld. Consultant, it is seen that services such as membership of club is not for the personal benefit of any employee, but are for pursuing the business activities of the appellant. For example, such services include membership of Indian Home & Personal Care Industry Association, Foreign Exchange Information Service etc. With reference to Life Insurance Service, it is noted that the appellant is under a statutory obligation to provide<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Rohit Surfactant Pvt Ltd Versus CGST, C.C & C. E-UJJAINCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 741 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 11-9-2018E\/50972\/2018-SMC, E\/51575\/2018-SMC, E\/51576\/2018-SMC And E\/51577\/2018-SMC – Final Order No. 52932-52935\/2018Central ExciseMr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Sh. R.K. Ambwani, Consultant For the Respondent : Sh. K. Poddar, P. … Continue reading “Rohit Surfactant Pvt Ltd Versus CGST, C.C & C. E-UJJAIN”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Heard Shri R.K. Ambwani, Ld. Consultant for the appellant and Shri K. Poddar, and P. Juneja, Ld. DR for the Revenue.
\n4. The arguments advanced by the Ld. Consultant are summarized below:-
\n i. The lower Authority has denied the Service Tax by contending that the services fall within the exclusion provided in 2(l) (C). But he argued that these services would be excludible only when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee. By submitting copies of certain invoices covering the various services, he reiterated that services were not for personal use of any employee, but were used in relation to the activities of the company. He also referred to a <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n