Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Delhi-Iii vs Energetic Lighting India P. Ltd on 23 August, 2016
Customs, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017
Single Member Bench
COURT NO.1
Excise Appeal No. E/58312/2013-SM
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 147/SVS/GGN/2013 dated 14.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Delhi-III]
,
Date of Hearing/Decision: 23.08.2016
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, 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 their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
CCE, Delhi-III Appellant
Vs.
Energetic Lighting India P. Ltd Respondent
, Appearance Sh. Satya Pal, AR- for the appellant None, Advocate- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61219/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (A) has allowed cenvat credit on input services namely Rent, ISO Service, Software Service, Advertising Service, CPA Service, consultancy Service, Courier, House keeping service, Commissioner, catering and Security on the premises same do qualify as input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The Revenue has challenged the order of Ld. Commissioner (A) on the ground that the input service received by the respondent have no direct nexus with their manufacturing activity in the light of the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC).
3. Heard the Ld.AR.
4. The sole reason for contesting by the Ld. AR is that in the case of Maruti Suzuki India ltd. (Supra), the Honble Apex Court has held that cenvat credit on input is available if these inputs have used in manufacturing of final product. Admittedly, in the case in hand no input is involved, therefore, the Ld. AR failed to understand the distinction between input and input service. In fact, in the case of Ultratech Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 269 (Bom.) has held that any services availed by the manufacturer of excisable goods is entitled for cenvat credit. The services in question have been availed by the respondent in the course of their business of manufacturing.
Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1