Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Emco Ltd vs Cce, Mumbai-Iii on 20 August, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPLICATION NO. E/Extn/95708/14 IN APPEAL NO. E/86043/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BC/437/M-III/2012-13 dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Belapur.) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
===================================================== M/s Emco Ltd.
: Appellant Versus CCE, Mumbai-III : Respondent Appearance Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate : For Appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) : For Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing : 20.08.2014 Date of Decision: 20.08.2014 ORDER NO.......................................................
Per: Anil Choudhary:
Appeal is filed by M/s Emco Ltd., engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz. Transformers falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 against Order-in-Appeal No. BC/437/M-III/2012-13 dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Belapur.
2. Issue involved in the present appeal is whether courier services, clearing and forwarding services, cargo-movers services and housekeeping services are input services as per the definition of input service vide Rule 2(I) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004.
3. The learned counsel for appellant states-
3.1 The contention of the Department is that the input services are not covered under the definition of input services since these services are not directly used in relation of manufacture of final dutiable product but they are relating to post removal and post manufacturing activities.
3.2 It is further stated that the input services in dispute are already decided in favour of the appellant vide the following orders of this Tribunal:-
Sr. No. Appeal No. Order No. & Date Input Services covered
1.
E/822/12-MUM A/130/14/SMB/C-IV dated 15.01.2014 House keeping, Courier and forwarding services
2. E/806/12-MUM A/126/14/SMB/C-IV dated 15.01.2014 Clearing and forwarding agency services
3. E/614/11-MUM A/129/14/SMB/C-IV dated 15.01.2014 Courier service, Cargo movers service, Clearing and forwarding services
4. E/578/11-MUM A/229/13/SMB/C-IV dated 08.03.2014 House keeping services 3.3 The appellant further states that this Tribunal have relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court have considered the issue at length & held that the definition of input service under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT credit Rules, is very wide and covers not only services which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacturing of final product but also after manufacturing of the final products. The definition covers not only services but also services used in the business of manufacture of the final product.
4. The learned A.R. relies on the impugned order but admits that the dispute is no more res-integra and stands decided in favour of the appellants.
5. Having considered the rival contentions, following the earlier orders, I hold that all the four services in question are input services relating to the manufacturing activity of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. The extension application is also disposed of as infructuous.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) Sp 3