Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Piramal Enterprises Ltd vs Cce Raigad on 4 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/99923/13
IN APPEAL NO. E/89790/13 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SK/259/RGD/2013-14 dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Piramal Enterprises Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Raigad
Respondent
Appearance Shri Manoj Chauhan, C.A. For appellants Shri D.D. Joshi, Supdt (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 04.04.2014 Date of Decision : 04.04.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein input service credit on Pest Control Service has been denied by the lower authorities on the premise that this service does not qualify as input service as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is also held that Pest Control service has no relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellants.
2. Heard both sides.
3. As the appellant has failed to co-relate the pest control services with the manufacturing of final product as to whether the inputs procured under invoices, were commission has been paid under Business Auxiliary Service, has gone into manufacturing of final product or not.
4. After hearing both sides on the stay application for sometime, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, I take up the appeal along with the stay application with the consent of both sides.
4. In the light of the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 TIOL 745 HC-MUM wherein it was held that any service availed by a manufacturer of excisable goods, in the course of their business, is entitled for input service credit. Admittedly, in this case the commission has been paid by the appellant for procuring the inputs and the pest control has been done in their factory for cleanliness of the factory. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant has availed these services in the course of their business of manufacturing of excisable goods. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for input service credit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
3