Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Yazaki India Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. Ahmedabad-Ii on 9 March, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/11708/2017-SM [Arising out of OIA No. AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-11-17-18 dated 30.05.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-II) Ahmedabad] M/s Yazaki India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs C.C.E. Ahmedabad-ii Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Sh. S. Narayanan (Advocate) For Respondent: Sh. Sameer Chitkara (A.R.) CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/decision:09.03.2018 Final Order No. A/ 10563 /2018 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra:
This is an appeal filed against order-in-appeal No. AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-11-17-18 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Ahmedabad.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and availed cenvat credit on various input services, namely, Outdoor Catering Service (Canteen Service), Employees Transportation Service, Epoxy Flooring Service, Travel Agent Service, Hotel Charges, Maintenance & Repair Service etc. during the period April 2010 to June 2013. Two SCNs were issued for recovery of the total credit of Rs. 44,27,684/-. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority has allowed credit of Rs.17,58,214 and rejected the balance amount. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who has allowed credit of Rs.63,714 and for scrutiny of credit of Rs.14,21,177/- on construction service remanded to the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the balance amount of Rs.11,84,580/-. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Ld. Advocate Sh. S. Narayanan for the appellant submits that the credit amount of Rs. 35,582/- relating to Outdoor Catering Service (Canteen Service) availed for the period 2010-2011 is eligible in view of the judgment of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Ahmedabad vs Ferromatic Milacron India Ltd. 2011 (21) STR (8) (Guj.). He submits that they have not collected any amount from the employees in providing the Canteen Service. Credit of Rs. 24,861/- availed relating to employees transportation service during the period 2010-2011, and also for subsequent period i.e. for 2015-2016, amounting to Rs. 2,73,455/-, it is admissible to credit. It is his contention that due to amendment to the definition of input service after 01.04.2011, and frequent changes thereafter, the issue of admissibility of credit of Service Tax paid on employees transportation service needs thorough scrutiny of facts, hence may be remanded to the adjudicating authority. However, he has not pressed Credit of Rs.1115/- on car hire service charges. Further, the Ld. Advocate has submitted that the amount of Rs. 3,12,404/- & Rs.30,544/- availed as credit during the period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 in relation to Hotel Charges & Air Travel Agent service, respectively incurred by the employees for sales/marketing activity is eligible to credit. In support he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Honda Motorcycle & Scooter (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, Delhi-III 2016 (45) STR 397 (Tri.Chan.). Further, he submits that the credit of Rs. 2,53,167/- availed by them on Construction Service which were used by them in repair and maintenance of their factory, plant and machinery during the period 2010-2011, hence eligible to credit. Further, he has submitted that there was an amount of Rs. 2,53,452/- availed as a credit on input service which could not be explained by them properly before the authority below as they were not possessing sufficient evidences to establish the nature of the services received and utilized, hence the credit was denied by the authorities below. He submits that they may be allowed to produce evidences before the adjudicating authority in this regard, and accordingly he prays that this issue also may be remanded to the adjudicating authority.
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter in relation to some services for verification of facts. He has no objection in remanding the matter for ascertaining the claim of the appellant relating to admissibility of credit on unexplained amount of credit availed, employees transport service and construction service.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant had availed credit on various input services mentioned as above. Out of these services, service tax paid on outdoor catering service (canteen service), extended to the employees is eligible to credit in view of the judgment of the Honble Gujarat High Court in Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd.s case (supra). As far as employees transport service is concerned, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to scrutinize the evidences in the light of the changes in law and its applicability to the facts of the present case. Service tax paid on Hotel stay charges and travel agent charges incurred by the appellant in relation to sales/marketing of their product is admissible to credit in view of the judgment of this Tribunal in Honda Motorcycles case (supra). On the issue of eligibility of credit on construction service, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has already remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, hence, the said issue for the earlier period is also remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification. Further, I find that the appellant had availed credit of Rs. 2,53,452/- but could not explain it properly before the authorities below against on which particular input service it was availed. The Ld. Advocate claims that now they are in possession of documents accordingly, they could establish the eligibility of the credit of the service tax paid on various services. Thus, this issue is also remanded to the adjudicating authority. In the result, the impugned order is modified and the appeal is disposed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue in the light of above observation.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Neha 4 | Page E/11708/2017-SM