Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Premier Conveyors P. Ltd vs Cce Thane I on 13 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/COD/92250/14
E/S/92251/14 and E/S/2571/12
IN APPEAL NO. E/85141/14 and E/1624/12 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BR (91-92)/Th-I/2012 dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I)
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?
M/s Premier Conveyors P. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Thane I
Respondent
Appearance Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate For appellants Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 13.03.2014 Date of Decision : 13.03.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeals against the impugned orders wherein input credit as well as input service credit have been denied.
2. The appellant in Appeal No. E/85141/14 has also filed an application for Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal. The contention of the appellant is that as there is a composite order therefore, they have filed only one appeal. On pointing out by the Registry, the appellant filed a supplementary appeal hence the delay in filing the appeal. As the reason for causing delay has been explained satisfactorily, therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal.
3. After hearing both sides, I find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after granting waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit, I take up the appeals themselves for final disposal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of Rubber Conveyor Belts. During the course of manufacturing of Rubber Conveyor Belts, they procured Rubber Conveyor Belts (semi finished goods) which was after carrying out process such as repairing, reconditioning, testing etc. sold the Rubber Conveyor Belts (finished goods) to the buyers on payment of duty. On these Rubber Conveyor Belts they availed input credit which was denied on the premise that the process of repairing, reconditioning etc. cannot be treated as manufacturing activities therefore, input credit is not admissible. The appellants were denied input service credit on CHA service on the premise that the service has been availed by the appellant beyond the place of removal. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant denying input/input service credit as discussed above. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand for input service credit but confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit availed on those conveyor belts by denying input credit. Although, the Revenue as well as the appellants filed appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appellant is in appeals before me against both the orders.
5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they have taken credit on Rubber Conveyor Belts which were finished by them and were cleared on payment of duty. Accordingly, to the revenue the input has been cleared as such. In these circumstances, if input has been cleared on payment of duty the same shall amounts to reversal of credit. To support his contention he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises vs. CCE Pune III 2013 (288) ELT 247 (Tri. Mum) which was affirmed by the Honble High Court of Bombay. He further submits that the CHA services have been availed by the appellant in the course of their activity of export of their goods and in case of export, the place of removal is the port from where the goods have been exported, therefore, the appellant is entitled for input service credit.
6. On the other hand, the learned A.R. supported the impugned order.
7. Considered the submissions made by both the sides.
8. It is not disputed that the Rubber Conveyor Belts in question have been cleared by the appellant on payment of duty. Therefore, the duty paid at the time of clearance amounts to reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs cleared as such or the activity of repairing, reconditioning etc. does not amounts to manufacture as per the decision in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra). Therefore, I hold that the appellants are entitled to avail input credit on the Rubber Conveyor Belts in question. Further, I hold that in case of export, the place of removal is the port from where the goods have been exported. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to take input service credit on the CHA service. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to take credit on input service in question.
10. In these circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
5