Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 7 October, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/13354/2013 (Arising out of OIA-SRP/162/DMN/2013-14 dated 02.07.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi) M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Written submission For Respondent (s) : Shri G. Jha, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 07.10.2016 ORDER No. A/11130/2016 Dated 07.10.2016 Per : Dr. D.M. Misra;
None present for the appellant. Heard the ld. AR for the Revenue.
2. This appeal is filed against OIA No. OIA-SRP/162/DMN/2013-14 dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Commissoner(Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi).
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant had wrongly availed cenvat credit on Input Services namely, cleaning services and pantry services at the residential colony during the period from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011. The appellant in their written submission submitted that cleaning service and catering services are covered under the definition of Input Service, as enumerated under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in view of the various judgments of the Tribunal.
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the appellant have availed cenvat credit on the aforesaid services provided at the residential colony. He submits that in view of the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE& Cus. Vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited 2011 (22) STR 610 (Guj.), the appellant is not eligible to the credit of service rendered in their residential colony.
5. I find force in the contentions of the ld. AR for the Revenue. In the show cause notice as well as in the impugned orders, it has categorically alleged and observed that these services were rendered in their residential colony. In view of the decision of the Honble High Court in the case of CCE& Cus. Vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited (supra), credit is inadmissible on these services being rendered at their residential colony. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and appeal is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) ..KL 3