Page 80 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

406 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
On going through the definition of services as defined under Rule 2(l) of
the Cenvat Credit Rules, I find that the same takes into its ambit the services
used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly for manufacture as well as for
clearance of the final product. The inclusive part of the said definition referred to
the services used for market research as well as activities relating to business. The
said definition is not exhaustive and is inclusive definition. Even if the inclusive
part of the definition is considered, the services relating to market research have
been held as admissible Cenvatable input services.
The services obtained by the appellant from M/s. BLS Detective Services
Pvt. Ltd. are nothing but market research services. The same are for the purpose
of surveying the market for finding out the various units who were engaged in
manufacturing appellant’s spurious products and marketing the same. Admit-
tedly said activity has a relation with the business activities of the appellant and
there is direct nexus with the appellant’s business activities. As such, I am of
view, that the Cenvat credit is admissible to the appellant.
5. In view of the foregoing, impugned order is set aside and appeal is
allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
_______
2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 406 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
ADITYA ENTERPRISES
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., MEERUT-II
Final Order No. ST/A/50937/2019-CU(DB), dated 24-7-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/51167/2014-CU(DB)
Manpower supply - Execution of work for principal - Payment based
on volume of work and not according to number of workmen deployed - ESI
and PF of worker paid by principal - HELD : Principal’s discharge of their ob-
ligation under ESI Act and EPF Act does not mean assessee supplied labourers
but entered into colourable contracts to avoid liability of Service Tax - Show
cause notice was based on presumption and not maintainable - Sections 65(68)
and 65(105)(k) of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 7, 8]
Demand - Limitation - Liability for past work - It could not be fastened
on assessee only for reason that in present or future assessee started paying
Service Tax under compulsion by principal - There was no contumacious con-
duct, suppression or falsification of records by assessee - Also, Service Tax
paid by assessee was available to principal as Cenvat credit - Hence, extended
period was not invocable - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 9]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.M. Saxena, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative, for the
Respondent.
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  200