Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... vs Suprajit Automotive Pvt Ltd on 16 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 20545 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: C/2579/2010-SM [Arising out of Order in Appeal 152-2010 dated 28/08/2010 passed by CC(Appeals), Bangalore] Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax - BANGALORE-CUS C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560001 Appellant(s) Versus SUPRAJIT AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD 125, 26A (PART), KIADB INDUSTRIA AREA, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGLAORE 561203 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant None For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 16/04/2014 Date of Decision: 16/04/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Revenue is aggrieved by the orders of the lower authorities wherein the refund claim filed by the respondent in respect of the following services has been allowed:
1. AMC charges
2. Calibration
3. CHA inward
4. Freight inward
5. Security charges
6. Testing charges
7. CHA outward
8. Telephone charges
9. Freight outward
10. House keeping
11. Statutory audit fees
12. Consulting charges
13. Travelling expenses
14. Training charges
15. Chartered Engineering charges
16. Courier charges local
17. Professional charges
18. Building Service charges
19. Office maintenance
20. Maintenance of land scape
2. The refund claim was filed for refund of accumulated credit under Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006 and there is no dispute that appellants have fulfilled the conditions required to be fulfilled for claiming the refund. The appeal has been filed on the ground that input services have no nexus with the manufacture and the only ground that the services were used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture, refund should not have been allowed. Another ground taken is that the Commissioner(Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal No.75/2008 dt. 29/05/2008 had rejected such refund.
3. After hearing the learned AR for the Revenue who reiterated the grounds of appeal, I find that in all these cases, the services are having a nexus with the manufacturing activity from the place of removal as was required during the relevant time. In the case of export of goods on FOB basis, the place of removal has to be treated as the port and substantial portion of the service relates to freight outward, CHA inward, security charges, building service charges etc. Since the port is considered as place of removal, freight outward upto the place of removal would be a eligible service and freight inward in any case is eligible and CHA charges also relating to inputs would be eligible. After consideration of various services listed in the year, I find that appellant is eligible for the refund and in any case the policy of Government is not to export taxes. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and reject the same.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja 2