Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Gujarat Guardian Ltd vs C.C.E., Surat Ii on 29 June, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.11281 of 2013-SM Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.CCEA-SRT-II/SSP-293 u/s35A-(Final Order) dated 25.2.3013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Surat II. Gujarat Guardian Ltd .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Surat II .. Respondent
Appearance:
None for the Appellants Present Shri L.P. Patra, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing:23.5.2017 Date of pronouncement:29.6.2017 Final Order No.A/11312/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
None present for the appellant. Heard the ld. A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue.
2. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. CCEA-SRT-II/SSP-293 u/s35A-(Final Order) dated 25.2.3013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Surat II.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants had availed CENVAT credit of Rs.3,19,7215/- during the period July 2008 to March 2011 on the service tax paid on the office rent at Delhi. Alleging that said service does not satisfy the definition of input service prescribed under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, notice was issued for recovery of the credit amounting to Rs.3,19,725/- with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal . Hence, the present appeal.
4. In their written submission, the appellant has submitted that service tax paid on renting of immovable property service for the office purpose in relation to procurement of orders and delivery of goods at Delhi is an input service within the definition of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as per the principle laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Delhi IV 2016 (41) STR 824 (Tri-Chan.).
5. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
6. I find that this Tribunal in the case of Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. (supra) has considered the issue of eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on renting of immovable property that is for branch office, for procurement of orders and delivery of goods and held that the same is an input service within the definition of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In view of the said precedent, the impugned order being devoid of merit is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Pronounced in the open court on 29.6.2017) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/ C/288, 298/2010-SM 2