Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Pune I on 1 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/2419/10
IN APPEAL NO. E/2169/10 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/141/2010 dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune 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?
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Pune I
Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Narayanan, Advocate For appellants Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 01.06.2012 Date of Decision : 01.06.2012 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order denying the input service credit on Catering Services and Tour Operator services for the expenses recovered from the employees of the appellants.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that although the entire amount of duty demand and interest has been paid by the appellants, in the impugned order, a penalty has also been imposed on the appellants, against which the appellants are in appeal.
3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.
4. The issue has already been settled by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., - 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.) wherein the Honble High Court held that although the assessee is entitled for input service credit for the manufacturing of final product but the amount reimbursed by the employees by way of contribution is not entitled for input service credit. As in this case, the appellants have paid the duty demand along with the interest and the issue is related to the year before the judgment of Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra), therefore penalty is not warranted.
5. In view of the above, I hold that the appellants are liable to pay duty along with the interest which has already been paid by them. The penalty, as observed above, is not leviable therefore, I dropped the penalty. The appeal as well as stay application are disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3