Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iii on 11 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 12.02.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/1537/2011 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.110/BK/GGN/2011, dated 25.03.2011 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-III]
M/s. Padmini VNA Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Delhi-III Respondent
Appearance Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate - for the appellants Shri D. Singh, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No._50456_, dated 12.02.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the moot question required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the services of interior decorators availed as an architectural service for the construction and decoration of the factory are to be held as cenvatable services or not. I find that the issue stands decided by various decisions of the Tribunal. References can be made to the Tribunals decision in the following cases:-
(i) CCE, Bhavnagar Vs. Nirma Ltd. [2012 (227) E.L.T. (Tri. Ahmd)].
(ii) Pepsico Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2013 (31) S.T.R. (Tri. Bang.)].
(iii) CCE&ST (LTU), Vs. Lupin Ltd. [2012 (28) S.T.R. (Tri. Mumbai)].
2. As such, I find that the issue stands decided. However, my attention was drawn by the Ld. Departmental Representative on the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice that the appellants had availed the CENVAT credit even before payment of consideration. However, as the lower authorities have denied the credit on merits, the said allegation does not stand examined by them. Accordingly, after holding that the said services are cenvatable, I remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to examine the said issue.
3. The appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-