Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Geodis Overseas Pvt Ltd vs Service Tax - Chennai on 23 August, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/391/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 57/2010 (MST) dated
26.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise
(Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 23.08.2018 Final Order No. 42290 / 2018 Per Bench The facts of the case are that the appellants inter alia, were engaged in cargo handling service. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that appellants (i) were required to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses incurred during the period 19.4.2006 to 31.7.2007 amounting to Rs.3,68,758/- and (ii) wrongly availed CENVAT credit of service tax on input 2 service used for non-taxable output service during the period June 2006 to March 2007 amounting to Rs.15,34,141/-. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued proposing demand of the aforesaid amounts along with interest and also for imposing penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the original authority confirmed the proposal. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 26.3.2010 reduced the penalty imposed under Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, however, upheld the remaining portion of the order passed by the original authority. Hence this appeal.
2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the issues in dispute are no longer res integra and have been settled by number of decisions. In respect of demand pertaining to reimbursable expenses, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). In respect of the demand with regard to alleged wrong availment of CENVAT credit of services used for non-taxable output service, he relies on the following case laws:-
a. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC) 3 b. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narayan Polyplast - 2005 (179) ELT 20 (SC) c. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (349) ELT 686 (Kar.) The ld. counsel submits that, in all these judgments, it has been reiterated that credit has been utilized for payment of duty which is not required to be paid; such credit is not required to be reversed.
3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides.
5. We find that the ld. counsel is correct in his assertion that both the issues are covered by the case laws relied upon by him. Hence the impugned order therefore cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Rex