Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Zydex Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 14 September, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/13344-13347/2013 (Arising out of OIA-PJ/167-170/VDR-I/2013-14 dated 21.06.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara) M/s. Zydex Industries : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Dhaval K. Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Dr. Jeetesh Nagori, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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 CORAM :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 14.09.2016 ORDER No. A/10911-10914/2016 Dated 14.09.2016 Per : Dr. D.M. Misra;
These are the appeals filed against OIA No. PJ/167-170/VDR-I/2013-14 dated 21.06.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Vadodara.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had received services of Custom House Agents and Rent-a-Cab service for the period Dec 2008 to Jun 2009 and availed CENVAT credit considering the same as input service. Demand notice was issued to them for recovery of the same and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty imposed. On appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence, the present Appeal.
3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the period involved in this case is prior to 01.04.2011 and is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner vs. Essar Oil Limited 2016 (41) STR 389 (Guj.). Also, in the Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011, at Para 12 it is clarified that credit on such services shall be available for the period prior to 01.04.2011. Ld. Advocate further made a categorical statement that the appellant had not recovered the charges/cost from the employees on the said Rent-a-Cab services. As regards the Custom House Agents service, it is his contention that the same is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Dynamic Industries Limited 2014 (35) STR 674 (Guj.).
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner.
5. I find that both the disputed issues of eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Custom House Agents and Rent-a-Cab service are squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner vs. Essar Oil Limited (supra) and Commissioner vs. Dynamic Industries Limited (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) ..KL 2