Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Modern Petrofils vs Commissioners Of Central Excise on 13 November, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad -ooOoo- Appeal No. : E/11096/2013 [ Arising out of OIA-PJ-412-VDR-II-2012-13 dtd 23.1.2013 Passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) VADODARA-II ] M/s Modern Petrofils - Appellant(s) Vs Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II - Respondent (s)
Represented by :
Appellant(s) : Ms Harpinder Sandhu, Advocated Respondent (s) : Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, 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? No 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 :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 13/11/2015 ORDER No. A/11660 / 2015 dtd 13/11/2015 Per : Mr.P.K. Das, The appellant filed this appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs 87,550/- alongwith interest and penalty.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid on Rent of Marketing Office, Mumbai, is inadmissible. The Learned Advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Oracle Granito Ltd vs CCE, Ahmedabad (2013.TIOL.822.Cestat.Ahm.). On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Rent of Marketing Office at Mumbai has no nexus with the manufacturing activities at their Branch and therefore, it cannot be treated as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
4. I find that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Oracle Granito Ltd (supra) allowed Cenvat Credit on an identical situation. In that case, the manufacturer of vitrified tiles for facilitating display of the goods at various places, were paying rent to the owners of the premises, who paid Service Tax under the category of renting of immovable property. In the present case, the Service Tax was paid on rent of marketing office at the appellants own office at Mumbai. In view of that, such services are to be considered as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2004.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) swami ??
??
??
??
2