Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Perfettti Van Meele India Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iv on 5 May, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017 COURT NO.1 Excise Appeal No. E/54208/2015-SM [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 13/MV/CCE/2015-16 dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Gurgaon) Date of Hearing/Decision: 05.05.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes M/s Perfettti Van Meele India Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV Respondent
Appearance Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate, for the appellant Shri. Harvinder Singh A.R., for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 60010/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein input service credit has been denied to the appellant for the following services (a) Courier services (b) record keeping charges service for the period of December 2013 to November 2014.
2. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the courier services have been received by the appellant for procurement of small engineering items, delivery of raw material, testing sample and various documents. In alternate, this courier services is received for the goods procured and raw materials/ Freight (GTA), IT Services etc. therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on courier charges paid by them, as these are directly or indirectly relating to the manufacturing activity of the appellant. She also submits that for the earlier period, post 2011, the adjudicating authority has already allowed cenvat credit on courier services and the said order has been accepted by the revenue, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied.
3. For the services on record keeping charges, it is the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that the said service has been availed by the appellant for storage of documents which are essentially required by them to safe custody for Central Excise provisions upto 5 years and for Income Tax Act more than 5 years. She also submitted that the said charges are not only storage but for retrieval documents also. It is the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that the record keeping charges are none other than audit and accounting services which has been allowed by the adjudicating authority for the earlier period. In that circumstances, they are entitled to avail cenvat credit on service tax paid on this services.
4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the courier services, the adjudicating authority have considered the submissions of the appellant hold that courier services have no nexus with the manufacturing activity. Therefore, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly denied cenvat credit to the appellant. He further submits that the record keeping charges are not relevant to the manufacturing activity to the appellant therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit on record keeping charges. He further submits that if the adjudicating authority (for the earlier period) granted cenvat credit have the right deny cenvat credit for further period.
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
6. On careful consideration of the argument by both the sides, I find that the issue involved in the matter is that, in the facts and circumstances in the case, whether the appellant is entitled to avail cevnat credit on courier services and record keeping charges post on 01.04.2011 or not?
7. The appellant has explained the uses of courier services for procurement for small engineering items, raw material, testing equipment. As the usage has not been contravened by tangible evidence by the revenue. In that circumstances, the courier services have been availed by the appellant are related to the manufacturing activity therefore the appellant has rightly availed the cenvat credit on courier services charges. With these observations, the cenvat credit availed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside the impugned order for taking the cenvat credit on courier services charges.
8. With regard to record keeping charges. I find that these records are the part of accounting and auditing to the appellant and accounting or auditing service forms the part of Rule 2(l) of cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the record keeping charges are entitled as input service in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I allowed the cenvat credit to the appellant on record keeping charges. Consequentially, the impugned order denying cenvat credit on record keeping is set aside.
In result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1