M/s. Chettinad Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of G.S.T. And Central Excise

Heard Shri M. Karthikeyan, Learned Advocate appearing for the assessee and Shri L. Nandakumar, Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue.

It is pointed out that the issue in the case on hand is squarely covered by an earlier order of this Bench of the CESTAT in the appellant's own case for an earlier period in Service Tax Appeal No. 42029 of 2018 [Final Order No. 41022 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019]. Learned Advocate would also take support from the following orders of other Benches of the Tribunal :

(i) M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Central Goods Service Tax, Jodhpur [2021 (3) T.M.I. 410 - CESTAT, New Delhi];

(ii) M/s. Himadri Speciality Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata [2020 (1) T.M.I. 69 - CESTAT, Kolkata];

(iii) M/s. Merino Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Noida [2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 209 (Tri. - All.)];

(iv) M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra v. Commr. of Service Tax, Mumbai-II [2018 (4) T.M.I. 670 - CESTAT, Mumbai]

After going through the order of this Bench In the appellant's own case (supra), I find that after hearing both sides, the Bench had held as under:

"5.The issue is whether the demand raised alleging that the credit availed on input services in the nature of tour operator service is eligible or not. As per the facts of the case, the said services were availed as incentive for the dealers who achieved the target sale. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. (supra) to argue that such tour operator services is eligible for credit when given as an incentive to dealers. From the facts narrated in the said decision, it is not clear that the said tour operator services were not availed for personal consumption. However, on perusal of the facts, it is seen that the Show Cause Notice is issued against the appellant-company who is only an ISD. The decisions relied by the ld. counsel in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra), Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. (supra) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra) have discussed the said issue as to whether the demand can be raised against the ISD alleging wrong availment of credit when the credit has been availed by the unit company and the ISD has only distributed the credit. The demand raised against the appellant-company who is an ISD cannot sustain. Following these decision, I am of the view that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any."

Admittedly, the very issue of denying credit availed on input service in the nature of tour operator service, provided to their dealers as an encouragement, has already been decided by this Bench. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is only an Input Service Distributor who only distributed the credit. In view of the above, I do not see any reason to deviate from the above view as the issue is almost identical. Following therefore the judicial precedents, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)