Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Munjal Kiriu Industries Ltd vs Cce, Gurgaon-Ii on 31 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/52389/2015- (SM) (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.58-CE-APPL-II-Delhi-2015 dated 18.03.2015 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh-II) Date of Hearing/Decision: 31.08.16 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes M/s Munjal Kiriu Industries Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Gurgaon-II Respondent
Appearance Sh. R.C. Choudhary, Advocate - for the appellant Sh. Harvinder Singh, AR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61294/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
Heard the parties and considered the submission.
2. By way of impugned order, cenvat credit on input service have been denied to the appellant on various reasons and all are discussed separately.
(A) Construction Service
3. The appellant has availed cenvat credit on construction service namely civil work, architectural service, Civil Construction Work and Electric Fitting work. The Cenvat Credit sought to be denied on the premises that the said services have been availed outside the factory.
4. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the said services have been availed for renovation of their factory building and the same is within the factory, therefore, they are entitled for cenvat credit for the credit of Rs. 3090/- the bills not available, therefore, the same has been reversed.
5. As it has been disputed by the Revenue that the construction services have been availed by the appellant outside the factory or within the factory is to be verified from the Registration Certificate issued to the appellant. Therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority. In that view, in the issue of availment of cenvat credit on construction service is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification, whether the services have been availed outside factory or within the factory. After verification, the issue is required to be decided. The cenvat credit of Rs. 3090/- is denied for want of invoice.
B. Address of the service provider was not mentioned on the invoices.
6. The cenvat credit of Rs. 6664/- was sought to be denied as address of the service provider was not mentioned on the invoices. Later on, the appellant has provided that the address of the service provider. In that circumstance, the adjudication order has to verify whether the address is the proper address of the service provider mentioned in the invoices the same is to be examined by the adjudicating authority. After verification, if it is found correct, the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit.
C. Facilitation Charges Services
7. The contention of the appellant is that these charges have been paid by them for negotiation of purchase of power. If the said service is with regard to the negotiation of purchase power, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit and the same is to be examined by the adjudicating authority.
D. Business related service namely Consultancy or Vehicle Service:
8. The contention of the appellant is that all the services have been availed in the course of their business manufacturing prior to 01.04.2011. This fact is to be verified whether all the services pertains to prior to 01.04.2011 or not? If the services pertains to the period prior to 01.04.2011, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit as per the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 269 (Bom.). The verification is required for availment of cenvat credit.
E. Courier Service:
9. The Contention of the appellant is that courier services have been availed for sending urgent sample, documents of purchase or sale of the goods which needs verification at the end of the adjudicating authority, therefore, the adjudicating authority is directed to verify whether the said services have been availed on and after 01.04.2011 and to ascertain the fact that the appellant has availed courier service having nexus with the purchase and sale of the goods. In that case, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit. Admittedly, for the period prior to 01.04.2011, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on courier service.
F. Denial of Credit
10. Cenvat credit sought to be denied on the ground that invoices were not having registration number of the service provider. Later on, the appellant has provided this registration number. This fact is to be verified. The cenvat credit of Rs. 11,69,852/- is allowed subject to verification of registration number. There are several invoices wherein invoices number is given in hand writing. It is not disputed that the services have not been availed and the service tax has been paid by the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail the cenvat credit on the said invoices to the tune of Rs. 1,44,190/-.
11. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed by way of remand as directed here in above, the adjudicating authority shall verify the documents produced by the appellant and to give an opportunity to hearing, thereafter, shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1