Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Agsar Paints Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 July, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/235/2008
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 5/2008 dated 26.8.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Agsar Paints Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Abdul Nazeer, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of Hearing: 20.07.2011 Date of Decision: 20.07.2011 Final Order No. ____________ Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has disallowed total credit of Rs.21,360/- of service tax paid on (i) telephone service (ii) vehicle maintenance (iii) fixed telephones and (iv) courier agency and has upheld penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. I have heard both sides. On the appeal which has been filed only against the denial of credit of service tax paid on telephone service, I agree with the assessees that telephone service having been used for sales promotion, (this is the stand of the assessees in the reply to the show-cause notice which has not been rebutted by the Department), this service is an eligible input service as it is a service used in connection with the activity of business of manufacture of final products by the assesses. I, therefore, hold that the credit of service tax paid on telephone service is admissible to the assessees. Since there is no bifurcation of the amounts denied in respect of four services, the duty demand has to be requantified after extending credit of service tax paid on telephone service, for which purpose I remit the case to the adjudicating authority. Since credit is being extended in respect of tax paid on telephone service, penalty also is required to be requantified.
3. The appeal is allowed as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Jyoti Balasundaram) Vice President Rex ??
??
??
??
3