Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Shivagrico Implements Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 3010 of 2011-SM
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 218/CB/CE/JPR-II/2011 dated 12.10.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals II ), Jaipur ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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?
No
2
Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Shivagrico Implements Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent,
Jaipur II Appearance:
Shri O. P Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri M S Negi, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing/ Decision : 3.7.2014 ORDER NO. FO 52738 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of agriculture implements which are being cleared by them to domestic market as also are being exported by them. The appellants conducts conference and dinners at ITC hotel, Mumbai for promotion of their business. The bills raised by ITC included Service tax to the tune of Rs.81,576/-, which the appellant availed as credit.
2. The dispute relates to said availment of credit. The lower authorities have denied the same on the ground that the conference and dinner for the buyers/ customers cannot be held to be covered by input service definition. Secondly, an objection was raised that the appellant has not produced the bills raised by ITC and only a certificate issued by them stand produced, without giving service tax registration number of ITC.
3. Learned advocate has shown me the order of the Tribunal in the case of Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat [ 2013 (32) STR 225 (Tri-Ahmd.)] wherein by relying upon Bombay High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom)], the buyers statement and conferences were held as an activity relatable to the manufacture of goods and covered by the definition of input services and entitled to Cenvat credit. As regards the documents, learned advocate clarifies that bill raised by ITC hotel was subsequently sought by them and they procured a certificate from them. In reply to the notice, all requisite details like the registration numbers were disclosed. The lower authorities have wrongly recorded that registration number of ITC hotel was not provided. In any case, he submits that now they had procured the copy of bill from ITC hotel and draws my attention to them.
4. As regards the legal issue, the same stand settled by the above referred decision. As regards documents, the appellant have now produced a copy of ITC hotel bill showing charging of Service tax. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by the Revenue cannot be upheld. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
3
E/3010/2011