Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Paradise Plastics Enterprises Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Noida on 6 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II Appeal No. E/52904/2014-EX(SM) [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. NOI-EXCUS-000-APPL-2430-13-14 dated 29.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Noida]. For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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? M/s. Paradise Plastics Enterprises Ltd. .Appellants Vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Noida .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.K. Das, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 06.05.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. 51638/2015-EX(SM) Per Ashok Jindal:
Cenvat Credit has been denied to the appellant on the following grounds:
a) Rs.35,634/- was disallowed on the account of invoice with the previous address of the appellant;
b) Rs.2414/- was disallowed on account of Telephone bills are in the name of Head office;
c) Rs.3,38,880/- was disallowed on the service tax paid on the rent paid for the premises which was carrying out job worker for the appellant;
d) Rs.8842/- was disallowed on the service tax paid on dismantling of the old building; and
e) Rs.21,630/- on service tax paid on Chartered Accountant services was denied as invoices is in the name of old office.
2. Heard the parties. Considered the submission.
3. The service tax of Rs.35,634/- was disallowed on account of invoices is in the name of previous address of the premises of the appellant. It is not denied that these services have not been used by the appellant. As these services have been used by the appellant and as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on these services. Therefore, I allow the Cenvat Credit on these services.
4. Rs.2414/- was disallowed on account of telephone bills are in the name of head office and same has been used by the officials at their residence and residential premises has been taken on rent where as per rent deed no commercial activity can be carried out by the appellant. I find that in this case bills are raised for the mobile bills which have been used by the officials of the appellant. Therefore, as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit thereon.
5. For denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs.3,38,880/- the reason is that the appellant has not produced job work agreement. In fact, the appellant has produced the job work agreement which revenue has not contravened without any cogent evidence that these premises were not used by the appellant in their job working activities. Therefore, I hold that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat Credit.
6. The Cenvat credit of Rs.8842/- was denied for dismantling of old building. In fact these services has been used by the appellant for dismantling of their plant and machinery located at their premises which was ultimately shifted to their new premises though same is integral part of their activity. Accordingly, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit thereon.
7. Further, the Chartered Accountant services have been availed by the appellant in the course of their business activity. Therefore, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit. With these observations I hold that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat Credit which was not required to be denied by the lower authorities.
8. In these terms appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/52904/2014-EX(SM)