Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Essilor Manufacturing India Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 February, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/25199/2013-SM, E/20904/2014-SM, E/21409/2014-SM, E/21410/2014-SM, E/21411/2014-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 340 to 345/2012-CE dated 23/10/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 708/2013-CE dated 26/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2014-CE dated 31/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE (Appeal-I) ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 84/2014-CE dated 19/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 48-2014-CE dated 31/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ] M/s. Essilor Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd Plot No.48 L& M, KIADB Industrial Area, Unit-II, DODDABALLAPUR - 561203 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.
KARNATAKA Commissioner of Central Excise Office of Commissioner of Central Excise No.16/1, 5th Floor, SP Complex Lalbagh Road, Bangalore 560 027.
Respondent(s) Appearance:
Mr. B.G.CHINANANDA URS, Advocate #520, AMRUTH NIVAS, 7TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, RMV II STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY, BANGALORE -560 003 For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish & Dr. Ezhilmathi, ARs For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 28/02/2017 Date of Decision: 28/02/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20292-20296 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The appellant have filed these five appeals directed against the various impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed the departments appeal and in certain cases, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. The issue involved in all the five appeals is almost common and therefore, all the five appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The details of all the five appeals are:
Appeal No. Period Amount E/25199/2013-SM 07/09 09/09 Rs.2,59,951/-
E/20904/2014-SM 07/08 09/09 Rs.2,83,753/- on input services & Rs.3,03,919/- on capital goods credit E/21409/2014-SM 04/12 06/12 Rs.14,10,456/- E/21410/2014-SM 09/09 12/10 Rs.28,60,849/- E/21411/2014-SM 07/12 09/12 Rs.11,87,878/-
3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of various spectacle lenses and they have filed refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 for various amounts and for the different period as stated in the table above. The adjudicating authority vide various Orders-in-Original allowed the refund in certain cases and rejected the claim of refund on various input services. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-Original in few cases, the department has filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who partially allowed the refund claim on certain services and disallowed the CENVAT credit on various services viz., air travel agency service; banking and financial service; Business Auxiliary Service; Catering service; General Insurance Service; Repair and Maintenance and testing services; recruitment and training service; manpower supply service; personality development service; renting of tangible goods service; and management or business consultancy service. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A), the appellant have filed these five appeals.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund of CENVAT credit on certain services is not sustainable in law because these services on which refund has been denied fall under the definition of input services and various courts have held that as input services and have allowed CENVAT credit/refund in respect of these services. The following table shows the case laws which have held that the credit is available and consequently, refund should also be granted of such credit. Nature of Service Case Laws Air Travel Agency Service Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (19) STR 72 (T) Cadmach Machinery Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (31) STR 33 (T) Semo Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (18) STR 177 (T) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) Banking & Financial Service Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) Business Auxiliary Service Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) Catering Service Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) General Insurance Service Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) Repairs, Maintenance & Testing Service Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011-TIOL-CESTAT-MUM.
Recruitment and Training Service Dell International Service India P. Ltd.: 2010 (170) STR 540 (T) Catering Service Semo Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (18) STR 177 (T) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) Manpower Supply Service CST, Mumbai vs. MMS Maritime (India) Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (41) STR 869 (T) Personality Development Programme Service Dell International Services India P. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (17) STR 540 (T) Renting of Tangible Goods Service Management or Business Consulting Service Dell International Services India P. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (17) STR 540 (T) CCE vs. Bioplus Life Sciences: 2014 (309) ELT 734 (CESTAT-SMB) 6.1 Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that this Tribunal in the appellants own case with regard to most of the input services have held in favour of the appellant vide Final Order No.20717/2016 dated 2.9.2016 and Final Order No.21296/2016 dated 23.11.2016.
7. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
8. After considering the submissions of the parties and perusal of the judgments cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions cited supra. Hence, I allow the appeals of the appellant by setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief, if any, subject to verification of the documents by the original authority.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 28/02/2017.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 6