Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Titan Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 16 May, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Appeal(s) Involved:
E/3276/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 242/2012CE dated 27/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
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?
Yes
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 Titan Industries Ltd
15B Bommasandra Indusrial Area
Bommasandra,
Bangalore
Appellant(s)
Versus
The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),Bangalore
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr Akbar Basha, C.A. For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 06/05/2016 Date of Decision:
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S.GARG, JUDICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20312/2016 Per : S.S.GARG This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 242/2012-CE dated 27.08.2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he has dismissed the appeal of the appellant by upholding the decision of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant are engaged in the manufacture of parts of aircraft/helicopter fittings with the hydraulic machines falling under Chapter 88 & 84 of CETA and has been taking CENVAT credit of duty of service tax paid on inputs, input services and capital goods used in the manufacture of final product in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show-cause notice dated 30.03.2010 vide which service tax credit on rent-a-cab services, professional services and convention services was sought to be denied for a period from March 2009 to October 2009 amounting to Rs 54,543 and also proposed to recover interest under Section 11B and Penalty in terms of Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide order-in-original dated 27.12.2010 ordered the reversal of credit to the extent of Rs 54,543/- under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 along with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs 2000/- under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 on the ground that all these services are not related to manufacturing activities and these had not been qualified for CENVAT Credit. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order dated 27.8.2012 confirmed the order-in-original and hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the authorities below have failed to appreciate the scope of the definition of input services. He further submitted that both the authorities have failed to appreciate that the services rendered by the Management Institute (Indian Institute of Management/CII Institute) to impart knowledge by conducting seminar and training to company staff is nothing but services falling under category of convention services and is specifically included in coaching and training which is mentioned in the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. He also submitted that the services rendered by rent-a-cab operator was used to operate in between Hosur and Bommasandra Unit in specified time for company staff besides engaging car rental in order to carry food to the factory which is an input service connected with the business of the company as was held by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs Cable Corporation of India [2008(12)STR 598] wherein it has been held that a rent-a-cab service to be considered as being used indirectly in relation to manufacture or as part of the business activity for promoting business, as any facility given to employees will result in greater efficiency and promotion of business. He also relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore Vs Stanzen Toyotetzu (P) Ltd [2011(23)STR 444 (Kar) wherein it has been held that rent-a-cab service for transportation of workers is an input service therefore CENVAT credit is admissible.
3. On the other and learned A.R. for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The only question to be decided in this case is whether rent-a-cab services for taking the employees from their residence to the factory and back and also for carrying food for the staff of the company as well as expenses incurred by the company for imparting training to its employees fall in the definition of input services or not. As far as rent-a -cab service is concerned, it has been held by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case cited above that rent-a-cab service is an input service and therefore credit is admissible. As far as training to the employees of the company are concerned this is specifically included in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Therefore in view of the law cited above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order denying benefit of credit on these two services is not sustainable in law and therefore I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any.
(Order pronounced in open court on )
S.S. GARG
JUDICICAL MEMBER
pnr
5