Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. India Tube Mills & Metal Industries ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/557/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AH/67/MUM.III/2009 dt. 18.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-II ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== M/s. India Tube Mills & Metal Industries Ltd.
:
Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II :
Respondent Appearance Shri Arpit Jain, C.A. for Appellant Shri V.K.Shastri, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 26/10/2016 Date of decision: 26/10/2016 ORDER NO.
The issue involved is whether the appellant being manufacturer is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on bill of Mobile Phone which is in the name of the employee as well as company, insurance premium of motor vehicle owned by company insurance premium of accident policy of the employees and insurance premium of guest house.
2. Shri Arpit Jain, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the credit was denied on the service tax of mobile bill on the ground that the bills are in the name of the employee. He submits that though employee name is their on bills but company name is also mentioned on the bills and the payment for the bill was discharged by the company therefore the cenvat credit should be admissible. As regards cenvat credit in respect of the service tax paid on insurance premium of motor vehicle owned by company, accidental policy of the employee and the guest house these are related to the over all manufacturing activity of the appellant, therefore falls under the definition of input service.
3. Shri V.K. Shastri, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that being a manufacturer, the appellant has availed cenvat credit in respect of service tax on the mobile phones and insurance policies. All these services in my considered view is related to the factory and over all manufacturing activity therefore admissible for the cenvat credit. This Tribunal in various decision has allowed the cenvat credit on these very input services which are referred below:
(i) Telenet Systems Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Belapur 2012 (277) E.L.T. 209 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(ii) Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jaipur-Ii Vs J.K. Cement Works 2012 (277) E.L.T. 194 (Tri. - Del.)
(iii) J.K. Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut-Ii 2011 (270) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. - Del.)
(iv) Manikgarh Cement Vs.Commissioner Of C. Ex. & Cus., Nagpur 2012 (284) E.L.T. 607 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(v) Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex. & S.T. (Ltu), Mumbai 2016 (42) S.T.R. 384 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(vi) Mount Kellett Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Commr. Of S.T., Mumbai-I 2015 (40) S.T.R. 165 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(vii) Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. & S.T. (Ltu), Mumbai 2015 (38) S.T.R. 217 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(viii) Infosys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Bangalore 2015 (37) S.T.R. 862 (Tri. - Bang.) In view of the above case laws, I am of the considered view that the cenvat credit on mobile phones and insurance policies are admissible to appellant, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced & Dictated in court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) SM.
4Appeal No. E/557/09