Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd on 1 December, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/20239/2014-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 559/2013 dated 29/10/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).] Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd No.21, E1, II Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, BANGALORE - 560058 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Mohammed Yousuf, AR For the Appellant Shri N. Anand, Advocate For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 01/12/2016 Date of Decision: 01/12/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21340 / 2016 Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated 29.10.2013 vide the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the Department and upheld the Order-in-Original.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent-assessee is a 100% EOU holding a private bonded license and in-bound manufacture sanction order dated 29.11.2004 and are manufacturing and exporting readymade garments falling under Chapter 62 of First Schedule to CETA. The assesse filed refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit under Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 on various services. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 30.3.2012 sanction refund of Rs.20,80,520/-. The said Order-in-Original sanctioning refund on various services was not accepted by the Department to the extent on rental services amounting to Rs.15,75,606/- and the Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 29.10.2013 rejected the appeal filed by the Department relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessees own case and upheld the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.
3. I have heard the learned AR and the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.
4. Learned AR submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law to the extent of granting of refund sanctioned on rental services. He further submitted that the rental services does not fall in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly defended the impugned order upholding the Order-in-Original. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and is settled in favour of the respondent by the decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal in appellants own case. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following authorities.
a. Jeans Knit P. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore: 2011 (21) STR 460 (Tri.-Bang.) b. CCE vs. Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (37) STR J244 (Kar.) c. Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I: 2016 (334) ELT 3 (SC) d. CCE, Delhi-III vs. Sunbeam Hi-Techn Medicate: 2016 (41) STR 776 (Tri.-Del.) e. Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV: 2016 (41) STR 824 (Tri.-Chan.) f. CCE, Delhi-III vs. Bellsonica Auto Components India P. Ltd.: 2015 (40) STR 41 (P & H)
6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records and the impugned order, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and further in the assessees own case, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has already granted CENVAT credit with regard to rental charges. Therefore, in view of the judgments cited supra, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 01/12/2016.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3