Order date – 18 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the export of investment advisory service to M/s. Warbug Pincus LLC, New York, USA which is covered under taxable service category and the appellant uses various input services for export of its output services during the course of its business.
• The revenue had disallowed CENVAT credit to the appellant for renting-a-cab service during the period 2011-12 and for outdoor catering service during the period 2014-15

Issue –

• Whether the lower authorities are justified in denying the Cenvat credit to the appellant for renting-a-cab service during the period 2011-12 and for outdoor catering service during the period 2014-15?

Order –

• The Tribunal relied on their decision in the matter of M/s. Mediacom Media India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC,CGST, Mumbai East; 2019(10)TMI 690- CESTAT Mumbai wherein it was held that even the circular dated 29.4.2011 issued by the Government clarified that the credit in respect of rent a cab service would be available in case the provision of the service was completed before 1.4.2011.
• The Tribunal finds that although the Appellants have received this service prior to 01.04.2011 which is supported by the documentary evidence wherein the travel date is prior to 01.04.2011, merely the invoices has been recorded in the books of accounts and in Cenvat credit register post 01.04.2011, accordingly it makes the appellant eligible to avail the Cenvat credit.
• So far as Outdoor catering service is concerned, it is apparent from the record that the department has wrongly added the amount of air travel service to the outdoor catering services. It is also clear that the CENVAT credit on the air travel service has been already allowed by the department. Hence it is to be deducted from outdoor catering services.
• The outdoor catering service has been used by appellant for providing meals to its employees round the clock and certainly the same is going to enhance efficiency and performance of the appellant’s employees which undoubtedly has nexus with the output service and therefore the credit is admissible.
• Undisputedly the said service is used by the appellant for its business activity during office hours and not as a personal or welfare measure for its employees nor it’s a perquisite provided by the appellant to its employees.
• Appeal is allowed.