Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
(Ii) The Commissioner Of Customs, ... vs (Ii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. ... on 12 August, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
COURT - I
Appeal No: E/203/2009 & E/171/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: 18/2008 (H-III) (D) Central Excise dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad.)
Date of Hearing: 12.08.2011
Date of decision: 12.08.2011
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
(i) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) The Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service Tax (Appeals - I & III)
Hyderabad.
Appellant
Vs.
(i) The Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service
Tax (Appeals - I & III)
Hyderabad.
(ii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance For the appellants : Shri S. Jai Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. Sabrina Cano, DR CORAM SHRI P. G. CHACKO, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 Per P. G. Chacko There are two appeals, one by the assessee and another by the Revenue, both directed against the appellate Commissioners order wherein CENVAT Credit was denied to the assessee in respect of group insurance service and the benefit was allowed to them in respect of GTA service.
2. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that group insurance service availed by them for the welfare of their employees is part of their business activities and, therefore, it is squarely covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is further submitted that above service was held to be input service by this Tribunal in an earlier case of the same assessee vide Final Order No.1003/2009 dated 1.5.2009 in appeal No.ST/138/2007 as also in the case of another company viz., Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2009 (14) STR 316 (Tri.-Bang.). Counsel submits that the issue being squarely covered by decisions of this Tribunal is liable to be settled in favour of the assessee.
3. In answer to a query from the Bench, the learned DR submits that Final Order No.1003/2009 dated 1.5.2009 passed by the Division Bench in Appeal No.ST/138/2007, in favour of the assessee, was not appealed against. One of the issues considered by the Division Bench in the said case of the same assessee was whether the group insurance service provided to them under medi-claim policy for the welfare of assessees employees by the insurer was an input service under Rule 2 (l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the assessee. After considering the nexus of the service to the business of the assessee, the Bench included the service within the ambit of the inclusive part of the definition of input service and granted the consequential benefit of CENVAT credit to the assessee. Apparently that decision was accepted by the Department and, therefore, there can be no surviving dispute. In the result, the assessees appeal has to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
4. In the Revenues appeal, the challenge is against grant of CENVAT Credit on GTA Service to the assessee. After hearing both sides, I note that GTA Service was availed by the assessee to transport their final products from the factory to various depots during the period of dispute. As service recipient, they paid Service Tax on the freight by virtue of 2(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1944. CENVAT Credit of such tax was availed for payment of duty on their final products. The question whether GTA Service could be considered as an input service as defined under Rule 2 (l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was settled in favour of the same assessee and against the Revenue by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. ABB Ltd. and others Vs. Commissioner - 2011-TIOL-395-HC-KAR-ST. As per Honble High Courts ruling, GTA Service is an input service within the statutory definition of this expression. In the result, the challenge in the Revenues appeal cannot be sustained. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in Open Court) (P. G. CHACKO) Member (Judicial) rv ??
??
??
??
4