Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 17 November, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/28005/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 420/2013 dated 20/08/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II (Appeals) ] Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 107&108, KIADB Industrial Area, Antarasanahalli, 2nd Phase Tumkur 572 106 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II PB 5400, C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Girish K, Cost Accountant No.36, Chatura Homes, 2nd Main, Meenakshinagar, Near Krishna Kalyana Mantapa, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore - 560 079 For the Appellant Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 17/11/2016 Date of Decision: 17/11/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21204 / 2016 Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dated 20.08.2013 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a 100% EOU for manufacture of processed food i.e. Gherkins and Processed Vegetables falling under Chapter 20 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and are availing the credit of service tax paid on input services under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant had filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 8,31,747/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Seven only) for the quarter ending March 2011, being the refund of unutilized cenvat credit of service tax paid on certain services in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law, in the impugned order has rejected their claim to the extent of Rs. 1,08,332/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two only) on certain services on various grounds. Aggrieved by the partial rejection of the refund claim in the impugned order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner only to the extent of Rs. 57,500/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) pertaining to Insurance Service and the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.
2. I have heard the parties and perused the records.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the said order is against the documents on record and also has been passed without considering the judicial precedents of the higher fora. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2012 passed by the adjudicating authority insofar as it relates to disallowing the refund of cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 57,500/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) is contrary to the provision of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and the notification issued thereunder. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has disallowed the cenvat credit of service tax on Insurance Service without proper examination of all the documents. He further submitted that the service tax paid by the appellant relates to insurance coverage for General Product liability/Contamination of Final Products. He further submitted that the insurance is not related to the Head Office as observed by the adjudicating authority and wrongly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). He also submitted that the final products are required to be insured by the appellant in order to cover various risks as such, the appellant has taken General Product Liability insurance and for which he has paid the premium to the extent of Rs. 57,500/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only).
4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the product liability insurance is covered in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 and therefore I allow the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 17/11/2016) (S.S GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss