Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Raipur vs M/S. Heg Ltd. (Sponge Iron Division) on 19 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 19.03.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/784/2007-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.01/RPR-II/2007, dated 12.01.2007 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Raipur-I]
C.C.E., Raipur Appellants
Vs.
M/s. HEG Ltd. (Sponge Iron Division) Respondents
Appeal No. E/910/2007-EX[SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.01/RPR-II/2007, dated 12.01.2007 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Raipur-I] M/s. HEG Ltd. (Sponge Iron Division) Appellants Vs. C.C.E., Raipur Respondents Appearance Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate - for M/s. HEG Ltd.
Shri D Singh, DR - for Revenue CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order Nos.51131-51132, dated 19.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
Both the appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by the assessee are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the dispute relates to availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services availed by the assessee. Whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the CENVAT credit in respect of major services, he has disallowed the same, in respect of two issues. First, he has held that the credit in respect of receipted GTA services, cannot be availed on the basis of TR-6 challans and secondly, he has held that the service tax paid on the telephone services in respect of land line phone installed at the residential premises of the employees of the assessee are not cenvatable. The said part of the impugned order is appealed against by the assessee.
3. I find that there are a number of decisions on the first issue. Tribunal in the cases of CCE, Goa Vs. Essel Pro-Pack Ltd. [2007 (8) STR 609 (Tri.- Mum)], Gaurav Krishna Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2009 (130) STR 629 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE, Gurgaon Vs. Sonasomic Lemforder Components [2012 (26) STR 338 (Tri.-Del.)] has held that TR-6 challans are proper cenvatable documents for the purposes of availment of credit of service tax. As such, by following the same, I decide the said issue in favour of the assessee.
As regards the second issue, Tribunal in the assessees own case reported in 2011 (21) STR 300 (Tri.Del) has held that the telephone services in respect of land lines installed at the residential premises of the employees are proper input services for the purpose of CENVAT credit. Accordingly, the said part is also decided in favour of the assessee.
4. As regards the Revenues appeal, the same relates to the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Mobile services, Rent-a-Cab, Commission on Sale, Courier Services, Repair and Maintenance of company vehicles and Insurance of the Employees. I find that all the above issues are covered by various decisions of the judicial as also quasi-judicial authorities. Reference in this regard can be made to the assessees own case reported in 2010 (18) STR 446 (Tri.-Del), wherein the entire case law stands discussed.
5. By following the same, I find no merits in the Revenues appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.
6. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-