Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Expert Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 March, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/28983/2013, E/Stay/28984/2013 in E/28300/2013-SM, E/28301/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/28300/2013-SM, E/28301/2013-SM [Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 418-419/2013 dated 20/08/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Expert Industries Pvt. Ltd. No.274-C, KIADB Industrial Area, Bommasandra Bangalore 560 099 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. M.S. Srinivasa, Advocate #185, 'Brahmi', 'G' Cross, 3rd Block Extension, Nagarbhavi 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 72 Karnataka For the Appellant Mr. Mohd Yusuf, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 02/03/2015 Date of Decision: 02/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order Nos. 20501-20502 / 2015 Per: B.S.V. MURTHY The appellants are the manufacturers of Rotogravure Printing Machineries and Lamination Machineries falling under chapter 84 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are operating under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During audit of the records of the appellants by the Department, it was noticed that the appellants had availed credit of service tax paid on Security Service, Telephone Service and Manpower Service which were not used in the appellants manufacturing unit but were used in their other units viz., Unit II, Unit III and Unit V located at different places. Further it also appeared that the appellants had deliberately availed the said credit with an intention to utilize the same towards payment of duty for the reason that this aspect came to the notice of the Department only during the audit of the unit. Since it appeared that the said services do not fall under the purview of input services and in no way related to manufacturing activity, the original authority issued two show cause notices covering the periods from April 2007 to February 2010 and from March 2010 to December 2010 with a proposal to deny the credit of Rs. 54,882/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Two only) and Rs. 15,125/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only), respectively and to recover the same along with interest and penalty.
2. After due process, the lower authorities have confirmed the demand for cenvat credit with interest and imposed penalty.
3. Since the matter involved can be decided straightaway, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and appeals are taken up for final decision. In both the appeals issue involved is common.
4. The appellants have taken cenvat credit of service tax paid on Security Service, Telephone and Manpower Supply Service provided to different units located in Bommasandra in different places in the main unit. The learned counsel submits that the credit was taken in the main unit since the bill was raised by the service providers on the main unit and further all the goods wherever manufactured finally come to the main unit and clearance of payment of duty takes place from the main unit only. Therefore the credit is admissible.
5. Learned AR would submit that the units are located in different places and services are attributable to the concerned units and since those units do not pay duty credit is not admissible.
6. I have considered the submissions. According to proviso to Rule 3, a manufacturer or purchaser of final product can take credit of duty paid on any input service received by him. Unlike in the case of inputs where credit can be taken only when it is received in the factory, in respect of input service there is no such restriction. Under the circumstances, the credit is admissible to the appellant so long as he is a manufacturer or purchaser of final products and such final products are liable to duty and cleared on payment of duty. Further it can also be said that such input services have been used in or in relation to a manufacture of final product. Therefore credit is admissible. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
(Order pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss