Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sweetco Food Industries vs C.C.E. & C.-Anand on 13 February, 2018
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Zonal Bench 2nd Floor, Bahumali Building, Nr Girdharnagar Bridge, Asarwa Ahmedabad 380 004 Appeal No. : E/11942/2017 Arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-003-APP-087-17-18 dt 15/05/2017 passed by the Commissioner ( Appeals ) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I Sweetco Food Industries - Appellant(s) Vs C.C.E. & C.-Anand - Respondent(s)
Represented by For Applicant(s) : Shri H P Kanade, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri S Shukla, Authorised Representative CORAM :
Shri M V Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date of Decision : 13/02/2018 ORDER No. A/10392/2018 Per : Shri M V Ravindran, This appeal is directed against OIA-VAD-EXCUS-003-APP-087-17-18 dt 15/05/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on GTA Services engaged for transportation of finished goods from job workers premises to the depot of principal manufacturer.
4. The appellant herein is a job worker of M/s Parle and manufacture biscuits and transport the same to the depots of M/s Parle as per directions from them. It is contention of the appellant and their Counsel that services dispute from GTA were in respect of the goods removed from the factory to the depot and for the appellant the place of removal of depot of appellant the place of removal is the depot of M/s Parle. He relied upon the decision of this Bench the case of Lao More Biscuits Pvt Ltd 2017(47)STR.267 and also on the circulars issued by the Board as to the interpretation of the place of removal. He would submit that the place of removal definition was inserted in Cenvat Credit Rules from 11.7.2014 by Notification No 21/2014-CE(NT) and since the period involved in this case is from Feb.2012 to May 2015. The case law decided by this Tribunal would have direct impact and appeals are to be allowed.
5. The Ld DR on the other hand submits that identical issue of the same principal manufacturer was before the Division Bench in the case of Kohinoor Biscuit products - 2015(37) STR.567 and the Bench has held the credit cannot be availed of the Service Tax paid on GTA services.
6. On careful consideration of submissions made, I do find that the Ld DR was correct in stating the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kohinoor Biscuits Products were considering identical issue of the same principal manufacturer and the job worker. The period involved in the case of M/s Kohinoor Biscuit Product was November 2009 to Oct 2011 ie., subsequent to amendment of the definition of input services in 2008. The said decision of the Tribunal squarely is in favour of the Revenue and it has been upheld by he Honble High Court of Allahabad as reported at 2015(38)STR.J.124. Since the issue has attained the finality in the hands of the Honble High Court and the period involved in the appeal being subsequent to the amendment of the definition of the input services, I find no merits in the appeal filed by the assessee and reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lao More Biscuits is also not applicable, in the light of the facts that the issue has been settled by the Honble High Court.
7. In view of the foregoing, I hold the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference.
8. Appeal stands rejected.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 13/02/2016 ) (M V Ravindran) Member (Judicial) swami