Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Subros Ltd vs Cce Gurgaon-I on 16 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. E/51784/2015-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 02/CE/Appl-II/Delhi/2015 dated 16.01.2015 passed by CCE (Appeals-II) Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Subros Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE Gurgaon-I Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Sukriti Das (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. Vaibhav Bhatnagar DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 16.11.2015 Final Order No. 54086 /2015_ Per S K Mohanty:
Denial of cenvat benefit on consultancy service and courier service is the subject matter of present dispute before this Tribunal. Both the authorities below have denied the cenvat credit on the ground that there is no nexus between the disputed services and the final product manufactured by the appellant.
2. Ms. Sukriti Das, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the courier service are in relation to the logistic support for transportation of goods and dispatch of documents and the consultancy service has been availed by the appellant for verification of credentials of the employees working in the factory. She further submits that the period of dispute in case of courier service is up to March 2011 and with regard to the consultancy service, the period is up to June 2012. It is her submission that since the activities relating to business was specifically mentioned in the un-amended definition of input service effective up to 31.03.2011, and the expenditure incurred for those services have been included in the cost of production for determination of the assessable value on which Central Excise duty liability has been discharged, the same should be considered as input service. With regard to the consultancy service, it is her submission that in the amended definition of input service w.e.f. 1.4.2011, recruitment is specifically finding a place in the inclusive part of the definition, since both the service have been utilized in connection with recruitment of the employees, the same should be considered as input service.
3. Per contra, Sh. Vaibhav Bhatnagar, the Ld. DR appearing for the Respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. It is contended that the cost of disputed services, in question, are forming part of assessable value of the final product manufactured by the appellant on which Central Excise duty has been paid. The only ground assigned for denial of the cenvat benefit is that there is no nexus between the disputed services and the final product manufactured by the Respondent. The disputed services are confirming to 'input services' defined under both the un-amended and amended definition contained in Rule 2(l) of the rules, for the purpose of availment of cenvat benefit. Further, in view of the fact that the cost of such services have been taken into consideration for determination of the assessable value of the final product, cenvat benefit on such services cannot be denied to the appellant, in view of the broader definition of 'input service', wherein the phrase 'activities relating to business' is finding place.
6. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 2 | Page E/51784/2015-Ex[SM]