Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Customs, ... on 9 September, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Excise Appeal No.E/59322/2013-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.160/RPR-1/2013 dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur (C.G.)]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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?
Jindal Steel & Power Limited Appellant
Vs.
Commr. Of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Requested to decide on merit.
Present for the Respondent: Shri. G.R. Singh, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 09/09/2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 54095/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Disallowance of cenvat credit of service tax paid on travelling, lodging and boarding expenses, by the authorities below, is the subject matter of present appeal.
2. In the impugned order, it has been held that the said disputed services are not confirming to the definition of input service in terms of Rule, 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, since those services have no nexus with the manufacture of finished product, by the appellant.
3. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
4. The period involved in this case is from June, 2008 to April 2009. The show cause notice dated 15.12.2011 was issued by the Central Excise Department, seeking disallowance of cenvat credit pursuant to the objections raised by the Auditors of the Accountant General (Audit), Chattisgarh, Raipur. The disputed services are in relation to the business related activities of the appellant, the same would qualify for availment of cenvat credit, in view of the broad definition of input service contained in the cenvat Scheme. Further, since taking of cenvat credit on the disputed services is not attributable to fraud, collusion, suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty, issuance of show cause notice should have been confined, to a period of one year from the date of taking cenvat credit. In the present case as the show cause notice was issued on 15.12.2011 beyond the period of one year from the relevant date, the same is barred by extended period of limitation.
5. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant both on the ground of merits as well as limitation.
[Operative portion pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 3