Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Paramount Communication Ltd vs C.C.E. Jaipur-I on 15 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. E/357/2012-Ex[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 291(AKJ)CE/JPR-I/2011 dated 30.12.2011 passed by CCE (Appeals) Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Paramount Communication Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C.E. Jaipur-I ...Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Neha Meena (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. G. R. Singh (DR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 15.03.2016 Final Order No. 55453 /2016 Per S. K. Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-I) Jaipur, upholding denial of cenvat credit in the adjudication order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables and avails cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of such final product. The appellant also avails Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the taxable services. The period of dispute in this case is from 2005-2006 to 2008-2009. During the disputed period, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on the Insurance Service for insuring its staff and employees, rent-a-cab service, repair and maintenance service of company vehicles. The cenvat credit was denied by the authorities below on the ground that the disputed services are not confirming to the definition of input service contained in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
3. The definition of input service' contained in Rule 2(l), prior to its amendment (up to 31.03.2011) was broad enough to cover within its ambit the phrase activities relating to business for the purpose of entitlement to the Cenvat benefit. Since the appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and the disputed services are no doubt related to the business activities of the appellant, in my considered view, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on those services, treating them as not confirming to the definition of input service. The issue regarding eligibility of cenvat credit on the disputed services is no more res-integra, in view of the judgment of Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST LTU Bangalore vs Micro Labs Ltd. [2011 (24) STR 272 (Kar.)], CCE Bangalore-III vs Stanzen Toyotetsu [2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.)] and also decision of Tribunal in case of Dr. Reddys Lab Ltd. vs CCE Hyderabad 2010 (19) STR 71 (Tri. Bang)].
4. In view of the fact that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate, as per the above authoritative decisions of the judicial forums, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 3 | Page E/357/2012-Ex(SM)