Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sona Koya Steering Systems Ltd vs C.C.E., Delhi-Ii on 19 November, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066. BENCH-SM COURT NO.IV Excise Appeal No. E/52009/2015-EX[SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.25/CE/Appl.-II/Delhi/2015 dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals-II, Gurgaon ] For approval and signature: Honble MR.S.K.MOHANTY, 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? Sona Koya Steering Systems Ltd. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri. B.L. Yadav, Consultant Present for the Respondent : Smt. Kanu Verma Kumar, D.R.(Commr.) Coram: HONBLE SHRI S.K.MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision : 19/11/2015 FINAL ORDER NO. __54273/2015___ PER: S.K.MOHANTY
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period of dispute in this case is from January, 2010 to May, 2012. During the disputed period, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on taxable services namely, canteen service, insurance service for insuring the finished goods and service for mediclaim policy, rent a cab service for transportation of employee and the labourers. Taking of cenvat credit on the said disputed services was disallowed by the Central Excise Department on the ground that these services have no nexus with the manufacture of the final product. The adjudication order passed in this regard in confirming the demand of Rs.6,14,644/- alongwith interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty was assailed by the appellant by way of filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the impugned order; the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal is before this Tribunal.
2. Shri B.L.Yadav, the ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more resintegra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 316 (Tri. Bang.).
3. Per contra, the ld. D.R. Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. I find that the issue involved in this dispute is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that the disputed services in question have the nexus with the manufacture of the final product and are in relation to the activity, for which the assessee is registered under the Central Excise Statute.
6. In view of the fact that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court].
(S.K.MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 3