Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 September, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/41525/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.14/2013 (C), dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry]
M/s. LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD.
APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Adv.
For the Respondent Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 08-09-2015 FINAL ORDER NO. 41222 / 2015 There are three disputes in this appeal, as is apparent from para 10.1 of the Adjudication order. Learned counsel says that so far as rental aspect is concerned, Cenvat credit is allowed. Therefore, the dispute is reduced to disallowance of service tax paid on Co-ordination Fee and Management Fee.
2. Learned counsel says that whatever was the tax collected had gone to the treasury. Therefore, Cenvat Credit of such tax is undeniable. But departments contention is that no nexus between the claimed input service and output service is established and in absence of the integral connection between input services and output services disallowance of service tax credit is justified.
3. Reading of para 10.11 till the operative part of the impugned orders shows that learned Adjudicating authority made an exercise to analyze the agreement and the law. But he has not tested the evidence in accordance with law. Therefore, limited direction is issued to that authority to examine the relevancy of the concerned input services, if any, and also test whether the invoices issued are genuine and the service in question were used for the purpose of output service or manufacture. If integral connection and nexus is established, Cenvat credit should be allowed. It may be kept in mind that once the tax realized had gone to the treasury, the appellant has discharged the burden of proof and as to payment thereof. That should not be sole ground to disallow Cenvat Credit. It is only for Revenue to establish whether there is any claim made contrary to law. Appellant is entitled to fair opportunity of hearing before passing order. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr 21-09-2015 DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of dictation 08.09.2015 Draft Order - Date of typing 14.09.2015 Fair Order Typing 21.09.2015 Date of number and date of dispatch 22/09/2015 4 E/41525/2013