Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Haubach Colour Pvt. Limited on 4 December, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/13004/2014 (Arising out of OIA-SUR-EXCUS-002-APP-015-15-14 dated 20.05.2014, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Surat) Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Appellant (s) VERSUS M/s. Haubach Colour Pvt. Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : Shri H.D. Dave, Advocate For approval and signature :
Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 04.12.2015 ORDER No. A/11782/2015 Dated 04.12.2015 Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem Revenue has filed this appeal aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondents are eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the Banking and other Financial Service provider, by holding that the same is covered by the definition of input service as the appellants are utilising the said service in connection with their export activities of finished excisable goods.
2. Heard both sides. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue takes us through the grounds of appeal and submits that Banking and other Financial Services cannot be treated as input services as it has no nexus with the Manufacture of the goods of the Respondent. Therefore, CENVAT credit of service tax charged on Banking and other Financial services cannot be taken as credit. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the definition of input service clearly defines to mean that any service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and clearance of final products from the place of removal and includes services used in relation to .. .. activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, .. . .. He, therefore, contends that services of Banking and other Financial services are clearly included in the said definition of input service. He also relied upon the decisions of Tribunal, in the case of CCE, Surat vs. Vishal Malleables Limited 2013 (287) ELT 234 (Tri. Ahmd.) and CCE, ST & Cus., Bangalore vs. J.K. Fabrics (Bangaore) Pvt. Limited 2015 (39) STR 315 (Tri. Bang.).
3. On consideration of the arguments of both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the issue is no more res-integra. This very of the Tribunal, has held that Banking and other Financial services will be covered under the definition of Input Service and CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the same would be eligible as credit for the manufacture of goods, especially when they are 100% EOU. For better appreciation, Para -7 of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat vs. Vishal Malleables Limited (supra) is reproduced below:-
7.?It can be seen from the above reproduction that the first appellate authority has taken a view, which is in consonance with the law and it is undisputed that the said bank commission charges are in respect of business of the appellant. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (wherein I was one of the Member), had considered this issue in detail for the purpose of refund of such amount on the goods which are exported. In my view, the ratio laid down by the decision in the case of Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd., is the ratio followed by the first appellate authority in coming to conclusion that if the goods are exported, refund of Service Tax on the services which are used in relation to the goods exported, needs to be refunded. I also find that the said decision was followed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of JSW Steel Ltd. (supra) wherein various other decisions were also followed and case was decided in favour of the assessee. In my considered view, the issue is no more res integra.
4. In view of the above analysis, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld.
5. Revenues appeal is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (P.M. Saleem) Member (Technical) .KL 2