Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Filatex India Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vapi on 10 January, 2018
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Zonal Bench 2nd Floor, Bahumali Building, Nr Girdharnagar Bridge, Asarwa Ahmedabad 380 004 Appeal No. : E/11262,11797/2014 Arising out of i) OIA-VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-434-13-14 dt 03/01/2014 ii) OIA-VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-493-13-14 dt 12/02/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) -VAPI M/s Filatex India Ltd - Appellant(s) Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vapi - Respondent(s)
Represented by For Applicant(s) : Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri S Chitkara, Authorised Representative CORAM :
Shri M V Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 10/01/2018 ORDER No. A/10185-10186/2018 Per : Shri M V Ravindran, These two appeals are directed against i) OIA-VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-434-13-14 dt 03/01/2014 ii) OIA-VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-493-13-14 dt 12/02/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) VAPI.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding eligibility to avail cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid on Internet and Telephone Services at various places.
4. It is the case of the appellants counsel that the input services Internet and Telephone services were in respect of specific factory ie., Vapi Branch office for Dadra factory, Surat Branch office for Bharuch factory and Mumbai is the marketing office for the products manufactured at Dadra, and Bharuch factories. It is the submission that cenvat credit ought not to be denied only in respect of Dadra unit. He would submit that the allegation in the show cause notice is regarding the invoices raised in the name of Head Office cenvat credit can not be availed at the factory arguing for appellants relies upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Star Drugs And Research Labs Ltd 2016 (45) STR. 88 and Parekh Plast (India) Pvt Ltd - 2012(25)STR.46 (Tri.Ahmd.)
5. Ld DR on the other hand submits that no evidence was produced that the services in respect of Internet and Telephone Service in a particular branches like Vapi and Surat were in respect of the manufacturing units attached to them.
6. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that the issue is not very clear as to how the appellant is claiming the branch office at Vapi, Surat specifically addressed to the needs of the factory premises at Dadra and Bharuch. The First Appellate Authority has categorically recorded that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show the services were received in the respective units. Before the Tribunal also, there is lack of evidence to show that the said services on which credit availed was for specific to the same unit.
7. In the absence of any such evidence, the Bench is unable to come to conclusion. In my considered view, the matter needs reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, the impugned is set aside and the matter remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice before coming to conclusion.
8. Appeals stands disposed of by way remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (M V Ravindran) Member (Judicial) swami 2