Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hinduja Foundries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 November, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal No.E/41829-41830/2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.87/2017 (CXA-I)dt.24.03.17 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals-I),Chennai] Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Arul C Durairaj, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
HonbleMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Date of hearing / decision :1.11.2017 FINAL ORDER No. 42748-42749 / 2017 The issue in these appeals is with regard to the disallowance of input service tax credit availed on courier services, pest control services, telephone services and manpower services.
2. The appellants were issued Show Cause Notice for the period October 2013 to August 2014 as well as September 2014 to August 2015 alleging that the credit availed on the above services is not admissible. After adjudication, the authorities below disallowed the credit on the above four services. At the time of hearing, the Ld.Counsel Shri M Kannan submitted that the credit in respect of courier services and pest control services were allowed in the appellants own case for a different period vide Final Order No.41980,41981/2016 dt.7.10.2016. That courier services was availed for the purpose of couriering the documents etc and pest control services were availed to keep the premises clean of pests. He explained that the telephone services were used by the Directors and employees of the company for their business activities of the company. The manpower charges were paid for the manpower engaged in the Executive / MD mess and therefore ought to be allowed.
3. On behalf of the Revenue, the Ld.AR Shri Arul C Durairaj reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He pointed out that the credit in respect of the telephone charges was disallowed as the bills were raised on the name of the employees and thus these services having been used by the employees is for personal consumption of the employees and therefore not eligible for credit. In respect of manpower charges, it is submitted by the Ld.AR that such manpower was not utilised in the Canteen orin the factory but in the mess provided for the Executives / MD of the company. Such manpower has to be considered as employees used for the personal attendance of such Executives and MD and therefore the credit has been rightly disallowed.
4. Heard both sides. The Ld.Counsel has submitted that the services in respect of courier and pest control was allowed in their own case for a different period vide Final Order cited supra. Following the same I hold that the credit in respect of these two services are to be allowed and I modify the impugned order to the extent of setting aside the disallowance of credit on these two services, and allowing the same.
5. The Ld.AR has put forward arguments, pointing out that telephone services and manpower services have been availed for the personal consumption of the employees. This submissions brought forth in this regard are factually correct as per the records placed before me. In such circumstances, I hold that the credit availed on telephone services and manpower services is not eligible for credit. The above impugned orders in appeals are modified to the extent of allowing credit on courier services and pest control services. The credit availed on telephone services and manpower services does not call for any interference. The appeals are disposed of in above terms with consequential reliefs if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S) Member (Judicial) vsr 3 1