Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd vs C.C.E., Noida on 28 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 28.02.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/379/2010 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.314/CE/AAPL/NOIDA/09, dated 30.10.2009, passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Noida]
Appeal No. E/1224/2011 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.18/CE/AAPL/NOIDA/11, dated 11.02.2011, passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Noida]
M/s. Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Noida Respondents
Appearance Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate - for the appellants Shri MS Negi, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order Nos.50901-59092/2014, dated 28.02.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri MS Negi, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel pipes and tubes. Prior to getting registration to the ISD, they issued certain invoices on the basis of which the factory took credit. The Revenue objected such availment of credit, which the appellants reversed without utilisation. However, in respect of the same very goods, the Head Office issued the invoices subsequent to their registration as ISD and the factory availed the credit. There is no dispute on such availment of credit.
3. The dispute in the present appeal is to the appellants liability to pay the interest for the period when the credit was earlier taken and subsequently reversed. It is undisputed that such credit taken was reversed without being utilised. This stands observed by the lower authorities in their impugned order.
The Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bill Forge [2012 (265) ELT 204 (Kar.) ], after taking note of the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Ind Swift [2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC)] has held that the reversal of unutilised CENVAT credit will not call for any interest liability. The said decision stands followed by the Tribunal in a number of judgements. One such reference can be made in the case of Gary Pharma Vs. CCE, Ludhiana [2013 (297) ELT 391 (Tri.-Delhi)].
In as much as the issue stands settled in favour of the appellants, I accept the contention of the appellants that no interest liability would arise against them.
4. The second issue involved is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the service tax paid by them on the Travel Agent services so received by them. The lower authorities have denied the same on the ground that the family members of the Director might have travelled in respect of the said services. Similarly, the service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab services so availed stands denied on the same very ground. The contention of the appellants is that all said expenses stand reflected by them in their records and as per the provisions of Income Tax law, an assessee cannot incur any expense of any personal nature on any of its employees, Directors family, etc. In this scenario, it has to be held that the said services were availed in respect of the business of the appellants.
I find that an identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal in appellants own case. The Tribunal vide its Final Order No.750/2012-SM[BR], dated 01.06.2012 has held that they would be entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the said services. By following the same, I hold in favour of the appellants.
5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -4-