Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Marudhara Motors, Jodhpur vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 July, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT III
Excise Appeal No.E/50885/2014-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.30o7/OPD/ST/JPR-II/2013 dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
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 should 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 Departmental authorities?
M/s.Marudhara Motors, Jodhpur Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.O.P. Agarwal, CA Present for the Respondent: Shri.M.R. Sharma, D.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 28.07.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. __55806/2016___ PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Denial of cenvat credit of Rs.97,309/- taken on advertisement service is the subject matter of present dispute.
The Department has denied the cenvat credit on the ground that such service has no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant namely, authorized service station service.
2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that apart from providing the authorized service station service, the appellant also provides the business auxiliary service and service tax attributable to the commission on that service is deposited into the Government Exchequer. He further submits that since the advertisement service is in relation to the business auxiliary service provided by the appellant, the same should be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of cenvat credit.
4. Ld. D.R. on the other hand reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order.
5. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
6. In the show cause notice at paragraph 5, it has been specifically mentioned that the advertisement service are in relation to promotion or marketing of vehicle and for awareness of public regarding the discount/finance scheme and the said activity is not connected with the output service provided by the appellant i.e. authorized service station service. Further, the adjudicating authority in the impugned order at page 34 has also endorsed such allegation made in the show cause notice.
7. I find that both the authorities below have not addressed the issue regarding the activities of the appellant in providing the business auxiliary service, for which the advertisement expenses have been incurred. Since the issue regarding taking of service tax on the disputed service for providing the taxable output service i.e. business auxiliary service have not been properly addressed by the authorities below, I have no option but to accept the submissions made by the appellant that those services have in fact been utilized for providing the business auxiliary service. Since the service tax paid on the disputed service is in relation to the business activities of the appellant, in my view, cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the same is not conforming to the definition of input service. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 3