Page 96 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

182 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
restriction in respect of inputs does not apply to input services. The Hon’ble
High Court in the case of M/s. Deepak Fertilizers & Petro-chemicals Corporation Ltd.,
reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 532 (Bom.) has held that it is not necessary that the
input services should be availed inside the factory itself. Thus, the rejection of
credit observing that the said warranty services have been availed beyond the
place of removal is without any legal basis.
7. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has also
pointed out that exclusion part in the definition of “input services”. For better
appreciation, the said exclusions are reproduced below as under :
The clause as amended w.e.f 1-7-2012 is as follows;
“(BA) Service of general insurance business servicing repair and mainte-
nance, in so far as, they relate to motor vehicle which is not a capital goods,
except when used by
(a) a manufacturer of a motor vehicle in respect of a motor vehicle
manufactured by such person;
(b) an insurance company in respect of a motor vehicle insured or rein-
sured by such person; or”
From the said exclusion clause, it is seen that credit will be eligible if the said
services are used by a manufacturer of motor vehicle. In the present case, the ap-
pellant is a manufacturer of parts and accessories. They supplied the parts and
accessories to vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle manufacturers are having an
obligation to the customers to provide the Warranty Services. The vehicle manu-
facturers as well as the appellant, who supply the parts and accessories have in-
cluded the warranty charges in the assessable value, while discharging the excise
duty. Thus, the appellant being a person, who supplies the parts and compo-
nents to the original vehicle manufacturer does not fall within the exclusion
clause. From the above discussions, I am of the view that the disallowance of
credit on warranty claims is unjustified. The impugned order is set aside. The
appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 182 (Tri. - Mumbai)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (J)
EASTERN PACIFIC SHIPPING (INDIA) P. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST
Final Order No. A/86798/2019-WZB, dated 10-10-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/88360/2018
Refund - Export of service - Whether assessee provided Intermediary
service or Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service to foreign princi-
pal - Revenue contending that since assessee an agent of their principal and
provided Seafarers to third parties to be employed in overseas vessels, in
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  96