SRF LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are in appeal along with application for stay against the impugned order where input service credit has been denied for rent -a -cab service availed by the appellant on the premise that the same is not eligible as per Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As the issue is of in narrow compass, therefore I waive the requirement of predeposit and take up the appeal itself for disposal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the SCN was issued to them on the allegation that rent -a -cab service is not input service as per Rule 2 (l) of CCR 2004 but both the lower authorities have also observed that as the appellant has not provided documentary evidence for rent -a -cab service which has been used by the appellant for bringing and dropping their employees from their residence to the place of work and other official purposes. Therefore, if the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority, they will produce documentary evidence showing that rent -a -cab service has been used by them in the course of their business of manufacture.

(2.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by the learned counsel, I hold that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Nagpur Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. : 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.), the appellants are entitled for input service credit on rent -a -cab service if the same is used by them for the official purpose and for bringing and dropping of their employees from their residence to the place of work as the said activity availed by them is in the course of business of manufacture. The only dispute remains is for verification whether the rent -a -cab service has been availed by the appellant for the purpose mentioned herein above or not. For that purpose, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification whether rent -a -cab service availed by the appellant for the purpose of bringing and dropping of their employees and other official use. In view of these observations, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate as stated herein above. The stay application is also disposed off in the above terms.