Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Banmore Cables & Conductor vs Cce, Indore on 13 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Appeal No. E/191/2011-EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. IND/350/2010 dt. 28.10.2010 passed by CCE, Indore]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Banmore Cables & Conductor Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Indore Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri V.K. Sethi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.K. Sharma, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 13.06.2013 FO ORDER NO. 56631/2013 Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the Banking and Financial services availed by the assessee would be considered as Cenvatable services so as to allow the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on the same. Further as to whether the debit advices issued by the bank after a period of 15 days from the date of providing services can be considered to be appropriate documents so as to allow the Cenvat Credit.
2. I find that the identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal decision in the case of the appellant sister unit M/s. MPI Machines Ltd. and vide final order No. 55642/2013 dated 21.02.2013, Tribunal hold as under:-
I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. As regards the first issue regarding the eligibility of the banking services of issue of letter of credit, bank guarantee, etc. availed by the appellant, I am of the view that these services are integrally connected with the manufacturing business of an assessee and hence have to be treated as covered by the expression activities relating to business in the definition of input service as given in Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, I hold that the services availed by the appellant from the bank are eligible for Cenvat credit. As regards the validity of the documents, the debit advices issued by the bank for different periods contain the name and address of the bank, service tax registration no, period during which services were provided, the nature of the service, amount charged for the services along with service tax and education cess. Thus, the debit advices issued by the bank on the basis of which Cenvat credit has been taken contain all the information which is required to be included in an invoice. Therefore, in my view, the debit advices have to be treated as valid documents for Cenvat credit. Just because these advices were not issued by the bank within a period of 15 days from the date of providing the service, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants as, as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vimal Enterprises (supra) the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to an assessee for faults for which he is not responsible. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
3. Inasmuch as the issue stand decided by the above referred decision of the Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
3