Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Welspun Maxsteel Ltd vs Cce Raigad on 11 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. ST/328, 329, 330, 331, 332/10 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/174 to 178/RGD/2010 dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s Welspun Maxsteel Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Raigad
Respondent
Appearance Shri R Ravindran, Advocate For appellants Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 11.03.2014 Date of Decision : 11.03.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeals against the impugned order wherein input service credit on the various services has been denied on the premise that the same do not qualify for the benefit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The services in dispute are as under:-
(a) Running and maintenance of barges and tugs,
(b) Insurance services,
(c) Horticultural services and
(d) Canteen services
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that all those services have been availed by the appellant in the course of their business activity being manufacturer of excisable goods. Therefore, as per the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 TIOL 745 HC-MUM the appellants are entitled to input service credit. He further submits that for the canteen service, the appellant has already reversed the amount of service tax on the cost of food recovered from the employees for providing subsidized food. Therefore, he prays that the appeals are to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.R. opposes the contention of the learned Advocate and submits that as per the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE Delhi - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (S.C.), the appellant is not entitled for input service credit. The learned A.R. also drew my attention to the input service credit availed by the appellant on insurance service. He submits that the insurance cover has been taken for the employees and their dependents which have no relation to the manufacture of final products and their clearance to qualify as input service. Hence the credit availed by the appellant on the insurance service is not admissible.
6. Considered the submissions made by both the sides.
7. The reliance of Maruti Suzuki (supra) by the learned A.R. has no relevance to the facts of the appeals in question as in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), CENVAT credit is available on inputs and here we are discussing about the input services. However, I find that the insurance cover on employees and on their dependents have no relation to the business activity of the appellant. Therefore, I do agree with the contention of the learned A.R. that the credit availed on the service tax paid on the insurance service is not admissible. For the rest of the services, I hold that the appellant is entitled for input service credit as per the judgement of the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Accordingly, I allow input service credit on all the services availed by the appellant in the course of manufacture except on insurance cover on the employees and on their dependents. In these terms, the appeals are disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
4