Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Continental Automotive ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 January, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/20809/2014-SM, E/21463/2015-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 635/2013 dated 25/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 110/2015 dated 27/02/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ] M/s. Continental Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd No. 53B, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Phase-1 Hosur Road, BANGALORE - 560099 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)
Appearance:
Shri H. Y. Raju, Advocate M.S. SRINIVASA #185, 'BRAHM', 'G' CROSS, 3RD BLOCK EXTENSION, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 72 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. Mohammed Yousuf, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 23/01/2017 Date of Decision: 23/01/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20120-20121 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The appellants have filed these two appeals against two impugned orders dated 25.11.2013 and 27.2.2015 vide which the Commissioner (A) has denied the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services. In both the appeals, the issues are identical and therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of the excisable goods falling under Chapter Headings 84, 85 and 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act and are availing CENVAT credit paid on input and input services in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR). Based on the audit objections, the appellant was issued a show-cause dated 2.9.2011 alleging that the appellants have wrongly availed the CENVAT credit in the following services which are shown in the table below:
Appeal No. E/20809/2014 E/21463/2015 OIA No.635/2013-CE dated 25.11.2013 No.110/2015-CE dated 27.2.2015 Period February 2008 to March 2011 January 2012 to September 2012 Amount involved Rs.10,98,116/-
Rs.1,87,216/-
Services in dispute * Garden Maintenance/plant maintenance * Housekeeping * Pest Control services * Membership Fee * Field Representative salary * Event Management * Payroll Management Service * Installation Service * Professional charges * Housekeeping * Event Management for meeting and sales meet * Charges for slogan posters Appellant filed the reply contesting the allegations in the show-cause notice and thereafter by following the due process of law the learned Additional Commissioner denied the CENVAT credit availed on the said services. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who partially allowed the appeal and rejected the CENVAT credit, in respect of the services stated in the table above, along with interest and penalties. Hence, the present appeals.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders denying the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services is wrong and not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the definition of input service and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant in support of his submissions. He further submitted that all these disputed services fall in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CCR. He further submitted that prior to amendment of input service definition effected on 1.4.2011 and even after amendment, all the services fall in the definition of input service. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following authorities:
(i) CCE, Bangalore-II vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar.)
(ii) Delphi Automotive System P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida: 2014 (36) STR 1089 (Tri.-Del.)
(iii) XILINK India Technology Services vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2016 (43) STR 438 (Tri.-Hyd.)
(iv) Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai-II: 2016 (43) STR 454 (Chennai)
(v) IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2014 (35) STR 384 (Tri.-Bang.)
(vi) CCE vs. M/s. HCL Technologies: 2014-TIOL-2001-HC-ALL-CX
(vii) Order-in-Appeal No.188-191/2016-CE dated 14.12.2016 of jurisdictional Commissioner.
4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) in the appellants own case for the subsequent period vide Order-in-Appeal No.188-191/2016 dated 14.12.2016 has allowed the CENVAT credit with regard to these services holding that the same are input services. Further, the learned Commissioner (A) in the subsequent decision has relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court to allow the CENVAT credit of service tax on various inputs.
5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned orders.
6. After considering the various case laws relied upon by the appellant and also the fact that the learned Commissioner (A) in the appellants own case has allowed the CENVAT credit on these disputed services, I allow both the appeals of the appellant and hold that the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services holding that all the input services fall in the definition of input service. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 23/01/2017.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 5