Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cargill India Private Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 January, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20081/2014 Application & Appeal involved: E/Stay/28189/2013 in E/25707/2013 Cargill India Private Ltd No.99, Hope Farm, Hoody-Whitefield Road BANGALORE DIST KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Raghavendra. B, Advocate V. LAKSHMIKUMARAN & V. SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 055 KARNATAKA AMANDEEP SINGH 14TH FLOOR, BUILDING 9 a, DLF CYBER CITY PHASE-III, GURGAON, HARYANA - 122002 For the Appellant Mr.A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 23/01/2014 Date of Decision: 23/01/2014 Order Per : B.S.V MURTHY Appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods. During the verification of records, it was found that they had availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid in respect of courier service, housekeeping and maintenance services for services rendered at M/s. Cargill Flavour Systems, Eco Space Campus amounting to Rs.1,18,077/- during the period from April 2011 to November 2011. The Head Office of the appellant had obtained centralized service tax registration certificate for payment of service tax and M/s. Cargil Flavour Systems, Eco Space Campus had also taken registration as Input Service Distributor (ISD). The dispute has arisen because the department entertained a view that the credit of service tax distributed by the ISD in respect of services received in their Eco Space campus could not have been availed by the appellant because the services were not received in the unit where credit has been availed.
2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that according to Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which provides for distribution of service tax credit by an ISD, there are only two restrictions for distributing the services. The first restriction is that the credit distributed should not exceed the amount of service tax paid in the invoices and the second restriction is that the credit of service tax in respect of services received in an unit engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing exempted services cannot be distributed. There is no such allegation in the show-cause notice. In the absence of any such allegation, the credit taken by the appellant is in order.
3. After going through the show-cause notice, order-in-original and order-in-appeal and hearing both the sides for quite some time, I could not find any finding or any evidence or any observations to show that credit has been denied on either of the two grounds specified in rule 7 of CCR. The denial has been made on the ground that there is no nexus between the products manufactured by the appellant and the services received during the period of dispute at M/s. Cargill Flavour Systems, Eco Space Campus of the appellant. In my opinion, prima facie, rejection of credit on this ground is not correct. Since in my opinion the show-cause notice did not consider or did not state that the services were received by an unit providing exempted service or manufacturing exempted goods; or the credit was in excess of the service tax amount paid, the credit could not have been denied on any other ground. Other than this, I find that there nothing left to be decided in this case. Accordingly, I consider that appeal itself should be allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant and I do so.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) B.S.V MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2