Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Schneider Electric Conzerve India ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 30 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Appeal(s) Involved
E/25352/2013-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 351/2012 dated 29/10/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore]
For approval and signature
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, 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?
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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s Schneider Electric Conzerve India Pvt Ltd
No. 44,Phase II, Electronic City,
Bangalore 560 100
Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise
C.R. Building,
Queens Road,
P.B. No. 5400,
Bangalore-560001
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr J.S. Bhanu Murthy, C.A.
For the Appellant
Mr Mohammad Yusuf, A.R.
For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 26/08/2016
Date of Decision: 30/08/2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20688 / 2016
Per : S.S GARG
The issue involved in this appeal is denial of CENVAT Credit of service tax on various input services.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of digital panel meters, energy meters etc. falling under Chapter Heading 902830, 903039 and 903289 of the CETA 1985. A show-cause notice dated 31.12.2009 was issued to the appellant demanding CENVAT credit irregularly availed by the appellant on various services. The appellant controverted the allegation in the show-cause notice mainly on the ground that the services on which credit has been availed are input services and are used by the appellant either directly or indirectly for their manufacturing activities. Thereafter the Addl commissioner vide order-in-original dated 28.08.2011 confirmed a majority of demand and also demanded interest under Rule 14 of CENVT Credit Rules 2004 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 15(3). Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order has confirmed the entire demand vide order-in-appeal dated 29.10.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had filed the present appeal.
3. Heard both the sides and perused the records. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the services on which CENVAT credit has been denied fall in the definition of input services as prescribed under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. He also submitted that various High Courts have held that the definition of input service should be given broader interpretation and has allowed credit on every service which is connected to the business activity of the manufacturer or service provider. There are 42 input services on which the CENVAT credit has been denied by the impugned order and learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Honble High Courts and the Tribunal wherein CENVAT credit has been allowed with regard to most of the services. The following table clearly mentions the nature and description of the service and the case law. Sl No Description of service Case law
1. Service charges paid to an agency who collects Form C from assessees customers Megma Design Automaiton (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CST Bangelore [2015(40)STR 800(Tri-Bang)]
2. Additional maintenance fund, Annual membership fee & Annual membership fee-export promotion council Pam Pharma & Allied Machinery Co. Pvt Ltd Vs CST Bangalore [2015(40)STR800(Tri-Bang)] CCE Vs Zensar Technologies Ltd [2016(42)STR 570(Tri-Mum)] Prudential process mgmt services (I) (P) Ltd Vs CCE [2016(42)STR 764 (Tri-Mum Hinduja FoundriesLtd Vs CCE [2016(42)STR 494(Tri-Che)
3. AMC Gurgaon Office AMC on built up area Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd Vs CCE[2011(22)STR 429(Tri-Bang)] CCE Vs Millipore India Pvt Ltd [2012(26)STR 517 (Kar) Balakrishna Industries Ltd Vs CCE [2010-TIOL-535-CESTAT-Mum CCE Vs Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd [2008(11)STR 266(Tri-Bang)] ADC India Communications Ltd Vs CCE [2012(283)ELT 415 (Tri-Bang)] Loreal India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2011(22)STR 899 (Tri-Mum)]
4. Architect service software block CCE Vs Lupin Ltd [2012(285)ELT 221 (Tri-Mum)]
5. Canteen services CCE Vs Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011(23)STR 444(Kar)
6. Car insurance DSCL Sugar Vs CCE Lucknow [2012(28)STR 559 (Tri-Del)
7. Conference & Exhibition Garware Polyster Ltd [2012(26)STR 215(Tri-Mum)]
8. Housekeeping Tree Plantation CCE Vs Millipore India Pvt Ltd [2012(26)STR 517 (Kar) Balakrishna Industries Ltd Vs CCE [2010-TIOL-535-CESTAT-Mum CCE Vs Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd [2008(11)STR 266(Tri-Bang)] Loreal India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2011(22)STR 899 (Tri-Mum)] Hindustan Coca cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Hyderabad [2010(19)STR 93 (Tri-Bang)]
9. Renting for office premises, Gurgaon office Rent paid to NRO Carrier Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd Vs CCE Delhi [2016(41)STR 824 (Tri-Che)] Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd Vs CCE[2011(22)STR 429(Tri-Bang)]
10. Insurance of raw materials, product insurance & Transit insurance DSCL Sugar Vs CCE Lucknow [2012(28)STR 559 (Tri-Del)
11. Pest control Hindustan Coca cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Hyderabad [2010(19)STR 93 (Tri-Bang)] ADC India Communications Ltd Vs CCE [2012(283)ELT 415 (Tri-Bang)]
12. Installation & Commissioning Commr Vs Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt Ltd [2009(14)STR 305 (T) Autoprint Machinery Manufacturers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2010(19)STR 428(Tri-Che)]
13. Internet Adani Port & Spl Economic Zone Vs CCE [2016(42)STR 1010(Tri-Ahmd)]
14. Job work charges Labour charges for assy and wiring of coolite panel On job work Shakun Polymers Ltd Vs CCE [2009(241)ELT 250(Tri-Ahmd)] CCE Blore VS Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd [2016(42)STR 427(Kar.)]
15. Seminar Adani Port & Spl Economic Zone Vs CCE [2016(42)STR 1010(Tri-Ahmd)]
16. Subscription to YPO CCE Vs HCL Technologies [2015(37)STR 716 (All)] 17 Association fee to traffic Pam Pharma & Allied Machinery Co. Pvt Ltd Vs CST Bangalore [2015(40)STR800(Tri-Bang)] CCE Vs Zensar Technologies Ltd [2016(42)STR 570(Tri-Mum)] Prudential process mgmt services (I) (P) Ltd Vs CCE [2016(42)STR 764 (Tri-Mum Hinduja FoundriesLtd Vs CCE [2016(42)STR 494(Tri-Che)
18. Car repair and servicing CCE & ST Mangalore VS MRPL [2016(42)STR 6 (Kar)] Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd [2013(30)STR 98 (Tri-Che)] Valco Industries Ltd Vs CCE [2012(286)ELT 54 (Tri-Del)]
19. Employee pick up and drop CCE Vs Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011(23)STR 444(Kar)
20. Service tax on designing pamphlets, stickers etc. CCE Vs SAS & Company [2011 (22)STR 512(Tri-Che)]
21. Email server maintenance Maintenance of computers Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2011(21)STR 460(Tri-Bang)]
22. Service charges for booking air travel tickets to executives and Directors Local travel facility to foreign delegates Force Motors Ltd Vs CCE Pune [2009(13)STR 692 (Tri-Mum)] Indian Rayon & Industries [2006(4)STR 79 (Tri)] Vidyut Metallics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2016(42)STR 321 (Tri-Mum)] Resil Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2016-TIOL-2019-CESTAT-Bang] The learned counsel further submitted that the various input services on which CENVAT credit has been denied has been allowed by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Courts cited in the table.
4. In my view appellant is also entitled to CENVAT credit on Air freight charges, charges for export shipment, freight charges for export, custom clearance for export, chartered engineer to calculate loss of RM, AMC, courier charges for documents and meters sent, mobile charges for CEO, mobile SMS usage charges, training, telephone charges coin booth, telephone charges dsts cards, travel, travel overseas medical insurance as all these services are related to the business of the appellant and also fall within the definition of input services as contained in Section 2(l).
5. In view of the above discussion, I allow the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the impugned order. (Order pronounced in open court on 30/08/2016) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr 2