In Excise Appeal No. 60009 of 2023- CESTAT- CESTAT (Chandigarh) recognizes Courier, Exhibition, Insurance, Internet, and Website Designing Services as Input Services under Cenvat Credit Rules
Member S.S. Garg (Judicial) [16-05-2023]

Read Order: Zoloto Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, May 18, 2023: The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the services of Zoloto Industries (appellant), namely, courier agency services, exhibition services, insurance services, internet services, and website designing services, were ‘Input services’, as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Briefly stated facts of the case were that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of valves and cocks falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were utilizing cenvat credit for the duty paid on inputs, capital goods, and service tax paid on input services used in or related to the production of their final products. A show cause notice was issued, challenging the cenvat credit of service tax paid on specific input services, namely courier agency services, exhibition services, insurance services, internet services, and website designing, on the ground that these services did not fall within the scope of the definition of 'Input Service'. The Superintendent vide order dated 19.11.2012 disallowed cenvat credit of Rs. 57,597/- and ordered for recovery of the same along with interest. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 57,597/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The bench of S.S. Garg (Judicial) held that the impugned order was not sustainable in law as the services involved in the present case have been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus v. Apar Industries Ltd [LQ/CESTAT/2010/3063], Garware Polyster Limited v. Commissioner Of Central Excise Aurangabad [LQ/CESTAT/2011/1902] and Fiamm Minda Automotive Ltd v. CCE [LQ/CESTAT/2011/58].