Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Skh Metals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 1 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II
Excise Appeal No. 52577 of 2014
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 10-13/SA/CCE/2014 dated 30/1/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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. SKH Metals Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Central Excise, Raipur (CG) Appearance:
Shri Shankey Agrawal, Advocate for the Appellants Ms. Ranjana Jha, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing /decision: 1. 5.2015 ORDER NO. FO/A 51662 /2015 SM Per Ashok Jindal :
Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying input service credit on the following services namely;
a) Outdoor catering services b) consultancy engineering services c) life insurance services d) recruitment services, e) tour and travel services f) car repair service and g) photography services.
2. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
3. To see admissibility of Cenvat credit, each service shall be dealt with separately.
A) Outdoor catering service Cenvat credit is denied to the appellant to the tune of Rs.16,10,227/- as the said amount they have paid on account of outdoor catering service. The said amount has been recovered by the appellant on subsidized food to the employees on which service tax works out to be Rs.5,62,378/- which appellant has already reversed along with interest. Therefore, balance amount of input service credit is available to the appellant.
B) Consultancy services The said services has been has been used by the appellant for payment of auditing of the company as well as of legal services availed by them. I hold that appellant are entitled to avail input service credit on this service as held by Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement [2010 (260) ELT 369(Bom)].
C) Life Insurance Services: On these services, Cenvat credit denied is of Rs. 4,29,591/- and appellant themselves have reversed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,79,466/- along with interest of Rs. 2,57,189/- and have not contested before and therefore the Cenvat credit on life insurance services is denied as not contested.
D) Recruitment Services - On these services denial of Cenvat credit has not been disputed by the appellant. Therefore, the Cenvat credit is denied and same has been reversed along with interest by the appellant.
E) Tour and Travel service Denial of Cenvat credit on this service has also not been disputed by the appellant. Therefore same is denied and same has been paid by the appellant along with interest.
F) Car Repair service On car repair service, the appellant has reversed the Cenvat credit of Rs.1,522/- along with interest of Rs. 839/- for the period post 1st April, 2011, but for the remaining period it is the claim of the appellant that car has been provided by the Company to the higher official for their use. The contention of the Revenue for denial of Cenvat credit is that these cars have been used personally by the higher officials of the company. But Revenue has not been able to produce evidence in support of their contention, therefore I hold that appellant are entitled to take Cenvat credit on car services prior to 1.4.2011.
G) Photography Service - The Cenvat credit of Rs.3027/- has been denied to the appellant on the premise that these services have no nexus with the business activity of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that seminars have been organized and during the course of seminars these photography services has been done which was ultimately used in the course of their business. Therefore, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on photography services as held by Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra).
4. With these terms, I decide the issue for denial of Cenvat credit as discussed above. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2