Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hid India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ... on 23 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/23342-23343/2014-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 416 & 417/2014-CE dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 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 M/s. HID India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX Bangalore-I Commissionerate, BANGALORE. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Vinayaka Hegde, CA For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan, (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 16/09/2016 Date of Decision: 23/09/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20825-20826 / 2016 Per : S.S GARG The present two appeals are directed against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 17.7.2014 vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original but dropped the equal amount of penalty imposed on the appellant. As the issue is identical in both these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Access Control Cards and Card Holders falling under Chapter heading 8523 5910 and 8471 9000 and they are availing CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. The appellant has availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on office rental and the rental charges paid to car parking space during the period April 2012 to September 2012 and October 2012 to September 2013. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 14.10.2013 covering the above period was issued to the appellant alleging that the input services relating to rental paid on immovable properties and on car parking charges are beyond the purview of input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and the same amounts to irregular availment of CENVAT credit. But Assistant Commissioner after considering the reply from the appellant confirmed the demand vide his order dated 29.3.2013/28.2.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Originals except dropping equal amount of penalty on the appellant.
2. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed ignoring the precedent decisions on the identical issue. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has wrongly held that the credit of input service tax on rent paid for car parking space and rent paid for sales office are not used either directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final goods. He further submitted that it is not required that each and every service should be used in or in relation to manufacture of goods and the definition of input service as contained in 2(l) of CCR, 2004 has been given wide interpretation to include any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following authorities.
(i) CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577
(ii) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted the authorities of KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 96 in which the Honble CESTAT, New Delhi has held that car parking facilities is held to constitute input service and eligible to claim CENVAT credit relying upon the decision of Desert Inn Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur: 2011 (23) S.T.R. 254. Further, the learned counsel cited the decision of Bangalore Bench in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (22) S.T.R. 429 and another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2016 (41) S.T.R. 824 wherein the Tribunal has categorically held that the renting of immovable property for setting marketing office fall in the definition of input service and the assessee is entitled to take CENVAT credit on these services.
4. Following the ratio in the above decisions, I allow the appeals of the assessee by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.
(Order was pronounced in open court on 23/09/2016.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3