Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Delta Energy Systems Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 26 February, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Court No.II
E/Appeal No.3022/2010
(Arising out of order in original No.5/SSS/CE/2010 dated 13.7.10 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Gurgaon)
Date of Hearing: 26.2.2013
For Approval and signature:
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member Judicial
Honble Mr.Sahab Singh, Technical Member
_________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
The order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of
the CESTAT (Procedure) rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the
Department Authorities?
M/s. Delta Energy Systems Ltd Appellants
Vs
CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
E/Stay 699/2012 in E/Appeal No.590/2012 M/s. Delta Energy Systems Ltd Appellants Vs CCE, Delhi-III Respondent Appeared for the Appellant: Shri R. Murlidharan, Advocate Appeared for the Respondent: Shri M.S. Negi, DR Coram: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member Judicial Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member Technical FINAL ORDER No. 56028-56029/2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that Cenvat credit availed on various services stand denied to the appellants as indicated below:-
1. Clearing House Agent
2. Erection & Commissioning
3. Inward Freight
4. Courier Services
5. Credit Card Services
6. Real estate agent
7. Repair and Maintenance We find that the law in respect of the above services stand declared by the Tribunal as also by other judicial forms. The Tribunal in the case of . has held that services . by sub-contractor are In the case of real estate Agency Services, the learned Advocate submits that some were availed for financing and marketing office of the appellant company which service is .. In view of the Honble High Court decision in the case of Ultra Tech reported in 577 Bombay, it stands held that any services related to the business of the appellant are covered by the definition of input services. As such, we hold that the appellant is entitled to avail credit on the said services.
Similarly in the case of 3, we note tht the law stand declared by the Tribunal in various decisions. Reference is made to Karnataka Page 32 Similarly Catering Service, law stand declared in the following decisions 28, 29 In view of the above, we find that all the services stand considered by various decisions and stand held as eligible input services. However, as regards, catering services, we find that the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultra Tech, has observed that catering services would be eligible for cenvat input services only if the assesse is not charging the employees. The learned Advocate has not been able to show any evidence to the above effect and submits that the demand on the above catering services falling within the limitation period is not being contested by him. We accordingly allow the cenvat credit in all the services except a part of the demand falling within limitation period on catering services.
In as much issue involved is the interpretation of law, we deem it fit to set aside the entire penalty on the appellant although a part of the demand is not being contested by the appellants.
Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) (ARCHANA WADHWA) Member Judicial (SAHAB SINGH) Member Technical MPS* 2