Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Hindustan Motors vs Cce, Indore on 19 July, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Court-IV
Excise Appeal No.1622 of 2008-SM
Date of Hearing/Decision: 19.07.2010
(Arsing out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/18/2008 dated 17.01.2008 passed by the CCE (A), Indore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s.Hindustan Motors Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Indore Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Manish Saharan,Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri Anil Khanna, SDR
Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
ORDER NO._______________
PER: ASHOK JINDAL
Heard both sides.
2. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order for denial of inputs credit on outward transportation of goods service.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of passenger vehicles, load body vehicles and drive away chassis. During the course of checking, it was observed that the appellants had availed GTA service on which they had paid service tax. It was found that the charges of GTA service are not included in the assessable value of the final products as the place of removal is factory gate. Therefore, appellants are not entitled to take input service credit in terms of Rule 2 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show cause notice was issued for proposing the demand alongwith interest and proposal for imposition of penalty was also made. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the demands were confirmed alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty by both the authorities. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. Learned Advocate submitted that their case is squarely covered by the decision of Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of ABB Ltd. reported in 2010 (23) STR 97. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to input service credit for outward transportation of goods service.
5. On the other hand, learned SDR submitted that outward transportation service charges have not formed part of the assessable value. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim input service credit on GTA service as held by Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld.
4. Heard and considered.
5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, I find that the short issue in this case is whether the appellants are entitled to input service credit on GTA service in case the service charges which do not form part of the assessable value or not? The issue came up before the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of ABB Ltd. reported in 2010 (23) STR 97 wherein the Honble Karnataka High Court has held that the appellants are entitled to input service credit on GTA service and Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) has held that the assessee is entitled for input service credit on the service availed by the assessee in the course of their business of manufacturing and charges towards services availed are formed part of the assessable value. As the service charges incurred in this case on GTA service has not formed part of the assessable value. The appellants are not entitled to input service credit on the said service. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mk 6 4