Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Multi Flex Lami Print Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.E/968/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.US/325/RGD/2012 dated 11/05/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Multi Flex Lami Print Ltd., Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent
Raigad
Appearance:
None for appellant
Shri.R.K.Maji, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing : 24/05/2016
Date of Decision : 24/05/2016
ORDER NO
Per: M.V. Ravindran
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.US/325/RGD/2012 dated 11/05/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice.
3. Since the appeal is of 2012, I take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation.
4. Heard the learned DR and perused the records.
5. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding denial of Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid by the service providers in respect of rent-a-cab services, mobile phone services, telephone services used in residence and guest house, pest control of factory and office and group insurance of workmen compensation. Both the lower authorities have come to the conclusion that these services are not integrally connected to the manufacturing activities of the appellant; hence, they are not eligible to avail Cenvat Credit.
6. The learned DR would submits that the majority decision in the case of Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum 2013 (32) STR 482 (Tri-Bang) speaks about the integral connection in manufacturing activities gone into before availing the Cenvat Credit on the input service, vis-`-vis the activity, ie., manufacturing activities of the person claiming the Cenvat Credit. It is his submission that the telephones, which are installed at the guest house and Cenvat Credit availed on such facilities, service tax paid is also ineligible as the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Vs. CCE, Jaipur-Ii 2011 (270) ELT 111 (Tri-Del) has specifically recorded that any service received in guest house is ineligible for availing Cenvat Credit. In the said judgement, he relies on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Maigarh Cement 2010 (20) STR 456.
7. After considering the submissions made by the learned DR as regards the Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on rent-a-cab service, the issue is now seems to be settled in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal decision in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (14) STR 316 (T) (I was one of the Members of the Bench), which has been upheld by the Honble High Court of Karnataka High Court as reported in 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar). In the said judgement, the Tribunal has held that service tax paid on the canteen services, transportation of employees, group insurance/health policy are eligible for availing Cenvat credit. As regards the Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on mobile phone and the residential telephones, the judgement of Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement 2010 (20) STR 589 (Bom) and Excel Crop CareLtd. 2008 (12) STR 436 (Guj) are directly on the point and holds Cenvat Credit is allowed on the service tax paid.
8. In view of the foregoing, I find that the appellant is eligible for availment of Cenvat credit and service tax paid on the various services. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) pj 1 2