Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Eicher Motors Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 August, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II
Excise Appeal No. 2719 of 2008
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 31/Commr/CEX/IND/2008 dated 27.8.2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Indore, Madhya Pradesh ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran , Member (Technical)
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?
M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Indore Appearance:
Shri B L Narasimhan, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri Parmod Kumar, Jt.CDR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing /decision: 03.08.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 52467 /2015-EX(DB)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Cenvat credit on convoy agency for providing drivers for transportation of vehicles and other logistic services were denied to the appellants.
2. The facts of the case are that appellant is a manufacturer of chassis for truck / buses and also fabricating the bodies on chassis of bus and truck. Apart from this, appellant is sending the chassis of bus and trucks to various body builders for fabrication of body thereon and those vehicles are sold by the appellant from the job worker premises directly to the dealers or from the depot / factory. Revenue is of the view that appellant is selling the chassis of the bus and trucks. Therefore, the convoy agency service / logistics service which were availed by the appellant after clearance of chassis / vehicles manufactured by them, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on these logistic services. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to deny the Cenvat credit on these logistic services. The show cause notice was adjudicated for the period June, 2007 to October, 2007. Cenvat credit on these services was denied. Consequently, demand of duty along with interest is confirmed and penalty is also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per show cause notice, the activity of the appellant is clear which is as follows;-
A) Appellant is manufacturing chassis of bus and trucks and clearing thereof on payment of duty to independent buyers.
B) The appellant is fabricating body on these chassis, so manufactured of bus and trucks by themselves.
C) The appellant is sending chassis of bus and trucks to the job worker for fabrication of body building thereon and clearing the same from the premises of the job workers directly to the buyers; and D) The appellant is sending chassis of bus and trucks to the job workers for fabrication of body thereon and after completion of body, the complete vehicles come to the appellant factory / depot and thereafter sale took place.
He submits that as appellant has paid the service tax to the supplier of the services who paid service tax under Business Support Service and also has received these services, therefore the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on these services as per Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004. He further submits that in the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority has not given finding on each of the activities undertaken by the appellant to deny the Cenvat credit. Therefore, impugned order is to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order and submits that infact show cause notice has also not proposes the denial of Cenvat credit on each of the categories separately. Therefore, appellants have no case at this stage.
5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
6. We have gone through the Show cause notice as well as the statement recorded at the time of investigation. We find that appellant is availing Cenvat credit of logistic services for the following activities:-
A) Has cleared complete vehicles to the dealers / customers.
B) Availing Logistic services for transportation of chassis to job workers premises. C) Availing logistics services for transportation of the complete vehicles from job workers place to the dealer/ customers; and D) Availing Logistic services for transportation of vehicles from job workers premises to their depot / factory from where sales took place.
7. We have also gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order, individual finding for each of the issue has not been given by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order on the issue raised by the appellants in their defense keeping all issues open.
8. The issue of eligibility of Cenvat credit on the basis of documents etc. shall be dealt at the time of denovo proceedings by the adjudicating authority. It is pertinent to mention that adjudicating authority shall provide ample opportunity to the appellant to present their case.
With these terms, appeal is disposed of.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
( B Ravichandran )
Member(Technical)
ss
2