Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. U.G. Sugar & Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 1045 of 2010 SM
Date of Hearing/decision : 30.7.2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-03-CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut II]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 : No
of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental authorities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M/s. U.G. Sugar & Industries Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Meerut II
Appearance:
Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR for the Respondent
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per Archana Wadhwa:
In this case, Service Tax credit amounting to Rs. 1.37,690/- taken by the Appellant on the four invoices has been denied by the Department on the ground that the Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,32,890/- has been taken on the three invoices issued by Axis Bank, M/s. TMVT Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. ABB, Bangalore which do not mention the nature of service. The Service Tax credit amounting to Rs.4800/- has been taken in respect of Service Tax on the insurance premium for insurance of the finished goods during the transportation from the factory to the customers premises which is not covered by the definition of input service. The Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dt. 29.5.09 confirmed the entire Cenvat credit demand of Rs.1,37,690/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs.1,37,690/- on the Appellant Company and penalty of Rs.25.000/- on Shri S.K. Maheshwari, Executive Vice President (Finance) of the Appellant Company. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-Appeal No.02-03/CE/MRT-II/2010 dt. 25.1.210 which upholding the Cenvat credit demand of Rs.1,37,690/- and penalty of equal amount set aside the penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on Shri S.K. Maheshwari. It is against this order that the present appeal and stay application have been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that bulk of Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,32,890/- has been taken on the basis of invoices of Axis Bank, M/s. TMVT Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. ABB, Bangalore; that credit on the basis of these invoices has been denied on the ground that these invoices do not mention the nature of service and hence are not valid document for taking Cenvat Credit; that perusal of the invoices clearly shows the nature of service and in this regard, he also produced the invoices.
4. As regards the Service Tax of credit of Rs.4800/- taken in respect of insurance premium for insurance of goods for outward transportation, he submits that when the Service Tax paid on freight for outward transportation has been upheld by Karnataka High Court judgement of M/s. ABB Ltd., the insurance undertaken in respect of same goods is also admissible.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Cenvat credit of Rs.1,32,890/- has been taken on the basis of the invoices issued by Axis Bank, M/s. TMVT Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. ABB, Bangalore. The invoice of Axis Bank clearly mentions the nature of service and fee which has been charged by them for processing the loan application of the Appellant. The invoice of M/s. TMVT Industries Pvt. Ltd. also mentions that the same is for repair service and similarly the invoice of ABB also mentions that the same is in respect of repair at site. Otherwise also I note that there is no dispute about the admissibility of credit or availment of service. The denial of credit on the technical objection, when it is otherwise available, should not be upheld. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to availment of credit.
6. As regards the credit of Rs.4800/-, I agree with the learned advocate that the same having been undertaken in respect of insurance of goods on outward transportation, it would fall within the definition of inputs service credit. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to the same.
7. In view of the above, impugned orders are set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
4