Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd vs Cce Pune Iii on 10 December, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/Stay 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514 and 1515 of 2010
IN APPEAL NO. E/1336, 1337, 1338, 1339 and 1340 of 2010 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/VM/56-60/10 dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
BILT Graphic Paper Products Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Pune III
Respondent
Appearance Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Manish Mohan, SDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 10.12.10 Date of Decision : 10.12.10 ORDER NO.
The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order for denial of input service credit on the following services:-
(a) Repair and Maintenance Services
(b) Catering Services
(c) Rent-a-Cab-Services
(d) Travel Agents Services As the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the decision of Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement as reported in 2010-TIOL-745-H.C-BOM, after waiving the condition of pre-deposit, the appeals are taken up for final disposal with consent of both the sides.
2. Heard and considered.
3. In the case of Ultratech Cement (supra) the Honble High Court has held that the assessee is entitled for input service credit for the services which are being used by them in the course of their business of manufacturing. There is no doubt the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of coated / un-coated paper and availed the above mentioned services in course of their business of manufacturing. Hence, they are entitled to avail input service credit in all the above services except the catering service wherein the appellants are required to reverse the amount recovered from their employees for providing them the subsidized food.
4. The learned Advocate for the appellants have undertook to reverse the amount recovered by the appellants from their employees for providing subsidized food during the impugned period.
5. As the issue involved in these appeals is of interpretation of availment of input service credit, the penalties are not warranted in these cases. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of with direction to the appellants to reverse the portion of input service credit on catering service as discussed above within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which the appellants shall liable to pay equivalent amount of penalty also.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3