Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Faiveley Transport Rail ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 March, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
E/42205/2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 22/2014 dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s. Faiveley Transport Rail Technologies India Ltd.: Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III : Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Sai Prashanth, Adv., For the Appellant Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Dates of Hearing /Decision: 28.3.2016 FINAL ORDER No. 40583 / 2016 Per P.K.Choudhary The short issue involved in this appeal relates to the denial of Cenvat credit on Tour Operators Service used for bringing staff to the factory. There were two Show Cause Notices dated 07.10.2009 for the period September, 2008 to March, 2009 and the other dated 14.02.2011 for the period February, 2010 to January, 2011, issued to the appellant assessee.
2. The Ld. Counsel Shri Sai Prashanth, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant Company submits that the period involved in both the Show cause notices is prior to 01.04.2011. He draws my attention to the findings of the adjudicating authority and particularly to para-13, wherein the adjudicating authority has held that the impugned service is closely related to the manufacture of the final products. He prays to set aside the impugned order and to restore the Order-in-Original. He relies on the following citations:
1. CCE, Chennai Vs. Hyderabad Industries Ltd.
2010 (20) STR 704 (Tri.-Chen.)
2. C.J. Gelatine Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal 2012 (25) STR 109 (Tri.-Del.)
3. Principal Commissioner Vs. M/s. Essar Oil Ltd.
2015-TIOL-2768-HC-AHM-CX He also filed copy of this Tribunals decision in the assessees own case, wherein the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 545/2011 dated 27.04.2011 has allowed the appellant assessees appeal for earlier period ie., January, 2007 to November, 2007.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the impugned services though consumed in relation to manufacture did not have any direct or indirect nexus to the manufacture of excisable goods. He further submits that though the period involved is prior to 01.04.2011, the definition of input service has been amended to exclude activities relating to business. He also submits that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He relies on the Apex Courts decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC).
4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that this Tribunal in the assessees own case for the prior period has allowed the assessees appeal. I also find that the adjudicating authority in his findings has discussed the entire issue in detail and discussed the interpretation of the term activities relating to business and held that the input services availed by the appellant assessee for tour operators service on which cenvat credit has been claimed is in relation to the manufacture of the final products.
5. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.) and the decision of this Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court) (P.K. CHOUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER BB 1