Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Flint Group India Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/26903/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 88-2013 dated 08/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise,(Appeals-I) BANGALORE] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 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 Flint Group India Limited No. 47 D, Kiadb Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Hosur Road, Anekal Taluk, BANGALORE - 560099 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Sudheshna Benerjee, Adv For the Appellant Mr. Parashiva Murthy, A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 16/09/2016 Date of Decision: 16/09/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20778 / 2016 Per : S.S GARG This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 88/2013 dated 08.03.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore.
2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is eligible to take CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services namely insurance charges, travel booking charges, legal consultancy charges, HR professional charges, certification charges, telecommunication charges and membership subscription charges under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the following judgements:
Sl.
No. Name of service Case law
1.
Insurance charges Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Bangalore [2009(14)STR 316 (Tri-Bang). CC Vs CE Gloves India Ltd [2013-TIOL-1975-CESTAT-Bang)
2. Travel Booking charges Principal Commissioner Vs Essar Oil Ltd [2016(41)STR 389 (Guj HC)]
3. Legal consultancy charges/HR professional charges/certification charges CCE Noida Vs HCL Technologies Ltd [2015(37)STR 716 (All)
4. Telecommunication charges CST Vs Wns Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-Mum)] CCE Delhi Vs S.K.H. Metals Ltd [2015(40)STR 690 (Tri-Del)]
5. Membership subscription charges Pam Pharmaceuticals & Allied Machinery Co. Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2016-TIOL-708-CESTAT-Mum] Since the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the judgements cited above, I allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief if any. (Order pronounced in open court) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr 3