Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Whirlpool Of India Limited vs Cce, New Delhi on 9 January, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Date of Hearing : 9.1.2012 Excise Appeal No. 1357-1358 of 2011-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 31-32/Commr./2011 dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, New Delhi] Coram: Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? Yes 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? No M/s Whirlpool of India Limited Appellant Vs. CCE, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate
Appeared for Respondent : Shri S.K. Bhaskar, A.R.
CORAM: Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
Order No.dated.
Per Mathew John:
The appellants are manufacturers of various home appliances like washing machines and they paid excise duty though Cenvat credit availed input and input services used in the manufacture of such inputs and input services. Three items of service on which they had taken credit were (i) house keeping service (ii) rent-a-cab service and (iii) courier services. The Revenue was of the view that the Appellants were not eligible for Cenvat credit on these services. A Show Cause Notice proposing to deny credit taken on these services along with another service viz. GTA service was issued and was adjudicated. During adjudication, the adjudicating authority (Commissioner) allowed their claim for credit in respect of GTA services. However, he denied credit in respect of house keeping, rent-a-cab and courier services and confirmed duty demand amounting to Rs.625/- in Appeal No. 1357/2011 and Rs.2,11,109/- in Appeal No. 1358/2011 along with appropriate interest. Further penalties equal to the duty demanded also were imposed.
2. The counsel for the Appellant submits that the question whether credit can be taken in respect of these three services is decided in the case of Balkrishna Industries Vs. CCE 2010 (18) STR 600 in the matter of house keeping service and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-III Appeal No. 1419-1422/2008 in the matter of Rent-a-Cab Services and CCE Vs. HEG Ltd. 2010 (18) STR 446 in the matter of courier services. Commissioner, LTU has taken note of these decisions in his order in original. But he states that these decisions of the Tribunal are in appeal before the High Court and therefore he is not able to follow the said decisions. The counsel points out that the decision in the case Stanzen Toyotetsu India (supra) has in fact been approved by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in CCE, Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. reported as 2011 (23) STR 444.
3. The matter of establishing nexus between input services and final products is on a slightly different footing as compared to nexus between inputs and final products. Going by the approach adopted by High Courts in the matter as in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu (India) (P) Ltd., I find no reason to deny the credit of service tax paid on the three input services. Therefore, I allow the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM