Page 94 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

180 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 180 (Tri. - Chennai)

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)
LUCAS TVS LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
Final Order No. 41032/2019, dated 19-8-2019 in Appeal No. E/40647/2019-SM
Cenvat credit - Input service credit - Warranty services - Repair and
Maintenance services provided by dealer during warranty period eligible to
input service credit - Such credit cannot be denied on the ground that input
services do not have nexus with manufacturing activity and same were availed
outside the place of removal particularly when the appellant has to provide
parts and accessories for such services and all input services not necessarily
required to be availed within the factory itself - Further, appellant being sup-
plier of parts and components to original vehicle manufacturer does not fall
within the exclusion clause of definition of input service - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004. [paras 6, 7]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.
— 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.) — Referred .................................................................................... [Para 6]
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2013 (32) S.T.R. 532 (Bom.) — Relied on .................................................................................. [Para 6]
Elgi Equipments Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (51) S.T.R. 457 (Tribunal) — Referred .................. [Para 2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri N. Ramasamy, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Ms. T. Ushadevi, DC (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of motor
vehicle parts and accessories and are registered with the Central Excise depart-
ment. It was noticed by the department that for the period from Jan., 2016 to
June, 2017, the appellant availed input service credit on GTA Services, which ac-
cording to the department was not eligible. Show cause notice was issued alleg-
ing that the credit is not eligible as input services since they do not have nexus
with the manufacturing activity. After due process of law, the original authority
allowed credit on certain services but denied credit on Warranty Services to the
tune of Rs. 1,25,982/- and confirmed this demand along with interest and im-
posed penalty of Rs. 12,598/-. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the
same. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, the Learned Consultant Shri N.
Rangasamy appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellants
are under obligation to provide Warranty Service to the customers, which is im-
parted through dealers. The dealers do Repair Services and the amount is reim-
bursed by the appellant. The service provider has paid the Service Tax on such
repairs done during the warranty period. The appellant has availed input service
credit on the Service Tax paid by the service provider as these are input services
for the appellant. The department has wrongly denied the credit alleging that the
Warranty Services are provided outside the place of removal and, therefore, is
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  94