Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 December, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/22757/2014-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 301/2014 dated 26/05/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I (Appeals)] Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 107-108, 121-122, KIADB Industrial Area, Antharasanahalli, 2nd Phase Tumkur Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II PB 5400, C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Girish K, Cost Accountant No.36, Chatura Homes, 2nd Main, Meenakshinagar, Near Krishna Kalyana Mantapa, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore - 560 079 For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 01/12/2016 Date of Decision: 01/12/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21339 / 2016 Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner by his order dated 26.05.2014 vide which he has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of processed Gherkins and Vegetables falling under Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has taken cenvat credit of service tax on various input services and filed claim for refund of cenvat credit of service amounting to Rs. 9,80,962/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Two only) for the period October to December 2011 in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification 5/2006 dated 14.03.2006. The adjudicating authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 6,81,715/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen only) and disallowed Rs. 2,86,985/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five only) on certain services vide Order-in-Original dated 20.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner for setting aside the impugned order as it relates to Rs. 2,52,969/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Nine only) pertaining to Telephone Service, Tour Operator Service, Courier Service, Chartered Accountants Service, Consultancy Service, Renting Service, Brokerage and Commission Service, Insurance and Business Auxiliary Service on various grounds. However the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
3. The learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 2,52,969/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Nine only) pertaining to Telephone/Mobile Charge Service, Tour Operator Service, Courier Service, Chartered Accountant Service, Renting Service, Brokerage and Commission Service, Insurance Service and Business Auxiliary Service has been rejected without considering the submissions of the appellant and the same is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that all these services have been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal and all these services fall in the definition of input service as prescribed in 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The learned Commissioner has rejected the cenvat credit on the ground of lack of nexus of these services with regard to manufacture of final product.
4. On the other hand the learned AR has fairly conceded that various services on which cenvat credit had been denied fall in the definition of input service. But with regard to Insurance, he submitted that it is not clear from the facts on record that the fact of insurance relates to which activity and for ascertaining this fact of input service of Insurance, the case has to be remanded back to the original authority.
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of input services viz. Telecommunication, Travelling Service, Domestic Courier, Overseas Courier, Professional Services, Rent, Commission and Brokerage, Business Auxiliary Service. But with regard to Insurance Service, I remand the case back to the original authority with a direction to examine the nature of Insurance undertaken by the appellant on the basis of the document produced by the appellant. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed and the case is remanded back to the original authority with a direction to decide the Insurance aspect on the basis of document submitted by the appellant. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed by way of remand.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 01/12/2016) (S.S GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss