Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Trichy vs M/S. Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd on 26 April, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/660/2010 and E/CO/06/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.160/2010 dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Trichy Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Appellant Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of Hearing: 26.04.2011 Date of Decision: 26.04.2011 Final Order No. ____________ The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of credit of service tax paid by the assessees, who are manufacturers of parts of motor vehicles, for gardeners and helpers.
2. I have heard both sides. The learned counsel for the assessees has not established as to how gardening has a nexus with the activity of the business of the assessees namely that of manufacture of motor vehicle parts. The Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) has held that credit is admissible to services which have a nexus with the activity of the business of the assessee. The gardening services have not been established to have any connection or nexus with the activity of the business of the assessees, who are manufacturers of motor vehicle parts. As regards penalty, the case of the Revenue is that penalty is justified as during the period from April to November 2008, the assessees had not disclosed that they were availing credit from ineligible gardener service in their service tax credit/debit entry register filed along with the monthly ERI return but wherein it was only mentioned as credit taken on security services. However, since the period of demand ranges from April 2008 to July 2009 and since the assessees have clearly shown that they are availing CENVAT credit on gardener service from December 2008, penalty is reduced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).
3. The appeal of the Revenue is thus partly allowed as above.
4. Cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon / reply to the Revenues appeal and is therefore dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) Vice-President Rex ??
??
??
??
2