Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs Cce, Delhi Iii on 14 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 14/05/2015. DATE OF DECISION: 14/05/2015. Excise Appeal Nos. 3614-3615 of 2012 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 50-51/SA/CCE/2012 dated 16/08/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., 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 would 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 : Department Authorities? M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited Appellant Versus CCE, Delhi III Respondent
Appearance Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 51692-51693/2015 Dated : 14/05/2015 Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The appellant are manufacturers of motor vehicles chargeable to Central Excise duty. The only point of dispute is as to whether they would be eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on Mandap Keeper service utilised for organising meetings with dealers, vehicle launch and other promotional activities and rent-a-cab availed for conveyance of employees to and from the factory, for official conveyance including visits to various Governmental authorities and for travel in connection with business meetings, visiting dealer sites, promotional activities, etc. The Commissioner holding that these services are not covered by the definition of input services has vide order dated 29/8/12 confirmed the total Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 56,90,065/- against the appellant alongwith interest and beside this, has imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. Against this order of the Commissioner, these two appeals have been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that so far as eligibility for Cenvat credit of Mandap Keeper services is concerned, the issue stand decided in the appellants favour by the judgments by the Tribunal in the cases of Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2011 (24) S.T.R. 82 (Tri.), Jaypee Rewa Plant vs. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2009 (16) S.T.R. 707 (Tri.), Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 450 (Tri.), Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 95 (Tri.), that so far as the question of eligibility for Cenvat credit of rent-a-cab service, the issue stands decided in the appellants favour by the judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts in the cases of CCE, Bangalore III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.), CCE, Bangalore III vs. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd. reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 315 (Kar.), CCE & ST vs. Lupin Ltd. reported in 2012 (28) S.T.R. 291 (Tri.), CCE, Bangalore I vs. Graphite India Ltd. reported in 2012 (27) S.T.R. 130 (Kar.), CCE, Bangalore I vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 428 (Kar.), CCE & ST, Raipur vs. HEG Ltd. reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 204 (Tri.), CCE, Jaipur II vs. J.K. Cement Works reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 538 (Tri.), and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner.
5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. So far as, the question of eligibility for Cenvat credit of the Mandap Keeper service is concerned, there is no dispute that this service has been utilised for organising meetings with the dealers, vehicle launch events and other promotional activities. This issue stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra), Jaypee Rewa Plant vs. CCE, Bhopal (supra), Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I (supra) and, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad (supra). In view of this, the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit in respect of Mandap Keeper services is not sustainable and has to be set aside. As regards, eligibility for Cenvat credit of rent-a-cab service, this service is utilised for transportation of the employees from their residence to the factory and back, travel in connection with business meetings, visit to Government authorities and promotional activities etc. We find the question of eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of rent-a-cab service also stands decided in favour of the appellants by the judgment in cases of CCE, Bangalore III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra), CCE, Bangalore III vs. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd. (supra), CCE & ST vs. Lupin Ltd. (supra), CCE, Bangalore I vs. Graphite India Ltd. (supra), CCE, Bangalore I vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. (supra), CCE & ST, Raipur vs. HEG Ltd. (supra) and CCE, Jaipur II vs. J.K. Cement Works (supra).
7. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeals are allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
5