Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Steril Gene Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Puducherry on 12 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. E/41291 & 41292/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.7 & 8/2014 (P)(D) dated 3.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Steril Gene Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Puducherry Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 12.11.2015 Final Order No. 41529-41530 / 2015 Learned counsel submits that the disputes are relating to disallowance of CENVAT credit in respect of the following services availed:
(i) Rental service of xerox machine
(ii) Courier service
(iii) Architect Service
(iv) GTA service for transportation of building material used in construction of the factory premises
2. Appellants submission is that all the four services above were used for and in relation to the business as well as the manufacturing activity of the appellant. He justifies that xerox machine being used for business and also such service is indispensable there should not be denial of such CENVAT credit of service tax paid on rental service of xerox machine.
3. So far as courier service is concerned, this service of courier is used for business which is regularly availed to either despatch the documents of business or the goods. Therefore, that is also not indispensable. Thirdly, the service of architect was utilized for construction of factory premises. Such service is indispensable. There cannot be disallowance of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid to avail such service. The last category is GTA service availed to transport the building material used in construction of the factory. Learned appellate authority allowed service tax paid on construction service as CENVAT credit. Therefore, denial of GTA service is inconceivable.
4. Revenue on the other hand says that all the services being irrelevant there should not be allowance of CENVAT credit.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The justification and the reason stated by the appellant as above does not require any difference nor also further elaboration since Revenue has no dispute to such reasoning. Therefore, both the appeals are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2