Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Cenvat Credit Case for Mobile Phones. Service Tax Paid on Mobile Phones Used by Employees Held Eligible for Cenvat Credit Under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 59
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which allowed cenvat credit to the respondent, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., for service tax paid on mobile phones used by its employees. The appellant argued that as per Circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003, mobile phones are not eligible for cenvat credit, and that the definition of 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not include mobile phones. The respondent contended that the circular is not applicable under the 2004 Rules and that mobile phones are used in the course of business, thus qualifying as input services. The court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, holding that the circular dated 20.6.2003 is not applicable under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and that service tax paid on mobile phones used by employees is eligible for cenvat credit as they are used in the course of business. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the respondent.

Headnote

A) Service Tax - Cenvat Credit - Input Services - Mobile Phones - Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Rule 2(l) - The issue was whether service tax paid on mobile phones used by employees of a manufacturing company qualifies as 'input service' for cenvat credit. The court held that mobile phones are covered under the definition of input services as they are used in the course of business, and the circular dated 20.6.2003 is not applicable under the 2004 Rules. (Paras 2-3)

B) Service Tax - Cenvat Credit - Circular Applicability - Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The court examined whether the Board's Circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003, which clarified that service tax on mobile phones is not eligible for credit, applies to the 2004 Rules. Held that the circular is not applicable as the 2004 Rules have a different scheme and definition of input services. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether service tax paid on mobile phones used by employees/staff of a manufacturing company is eligible for cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and whether the Board's Circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 is applicable under the 2004 Rules.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The substantial questions of law are answered in favor of the respondent. Service tax paid on mobile phones used by employees is eligible for cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Law Points

  • Cenvat credit eligibility
  • input services
  • mobile phones
  • circular applicability
  • Cenvat Credit Rules
  • 2004
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 118

Excise Appeal No. 31 of 2008

2015-03-10

F. M. Reis, K. L. Wadane

Ms. Susan Linhares, Mr. V. Menezes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing cenvat credit for service tax paid on mobile phones.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and deny cenvat credit to the respondent.

Filing Reason

Dispute over eligibility of cenvat credit for service tax paid on mobile phones used by employees.

Previous Decisions

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the cenvat credit to the respondent.

Issues

Whether service tax paid on mobile phones used by employees/staff of a manufacturing company is eligible for cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? Whether the Board's Circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 is applicable under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that as per circular dated 20.6.2003, mobile phones are not covered for cenvat credit, and the definition of 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules does not include mobile phones. Respondent argued that the circular is not applicable under the 2004 Rules and mobile phones are used in the course of business, thus eligible for credit.

Ratio Decidendi

The circular dated 20.6.2003 is not applicable under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Mobile phones used by employees in the course of business qualify as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules, and service tax paid on them is eligible for cenvat credit.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned counsel further points out that upon reading of the definition of the word 'Input Services' Rule 2(l) are not included for the purpose of holding that such services are Input Services. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the definition of the word 'Output Services' at Rule 2(p) of 2004 to point out that the mobile phones have not been included therein.

Procedural History

The Commissioner of Central Excise filed an appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which allowed cenvat credit to the respondent. The appeal was admitted on 21.4.2009 on substantial questions of law. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 10.3.2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: Rule 2(l), Rule 2(p)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Cenvat Credit Case for Mobile Phones. Service Tax Paid on Mobile Phones Used by Employees Held Eligible for Cenvat Credit Under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case Due to Unlawful Assembly and Common Objection Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Conviction under Sections 302, 324 read with 149 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to establish that the appellant...