Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Anand Automotive Ltd vs Service Tax - Delhi on 16 September, 2021
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 58840 OF 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 15/COMMR./PKL/2013 dated 18.04.2013 passed by
the Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula, Haryana)
M/s. Anand Automotive Ltd ....Appellant
1, Sri Aurobindo Marg,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
Versus
Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi ....Respondent
Service Tax Commissionerate, IAEA House,
17-B, I.P. Estate, M.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110002
APPEARANCE:
Shri B.L. Narasimhan with Ms. Shagun Arora and Shri Kunal Agarwal,
Advocates for the Appellant
Shri A. Thapliyal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P.ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
DATE OF HEARING: August 09, 2021
DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 2021
FINAL ORDER NO. 51818/2021
JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA
M/s. Anand Automotive Limited 1 has filed this appeal to
assail the order dated April 18, 2013 passed by the Commissioner
of Central Excise, Panchkula 2, by which part of the demand of
service tax proposed in the show cause notice dated February 24,
2011 issued for the period of October 01, 2005 to September 30,
2010 has been confirmed.
1. the appellant
2. the Commissioner
2
ST/58840/2013
2. A summary of the demand proposed in the show cause
notice and confirmed/ dropped by the impugned order is given in
the following Table:
Serial Issue Category of Period Service Tax/CENVAT
No. Service Credit demand
confirmed/ dropped
1. Transit / Guest Infrastructural May 2006 Rs.1,03,40,124/- confirmed
House services services under the to out of Rs.1,17,45,757/-
provided to group category of September 2010
companies Business Support (Rs.14,05,633/- dropped on
Services ('BSS') account of wrong application
of Section 72 of the Act)
2. Transfer of Manpower Supply October 2005 Rs.23,07,497/-
employees group Services to
companies September 2010
3. Non-payment of Not specified 10 May 2008 Rs.2,27,95,269/-
service tax on to
accrual basis of September 2010 (By letter dated 29.01.2019,
'income accrued the Assistant Commissioner
but not due' from has issued a compliance
Associated report wherein payment of
Enterprises Rs.2,27,72,925/- has been
acknowledged.)
4. Short payment of Not specified May, Demand dropped on merits
Service Tax as per June
gross value and
mentioned in ST-3 August 2006
return
5. Wrongful Not specified November 2005 Demand dropped on merits
adjustment of to
Service Tax under March 2007
Section 6(4A) of
the Rules
6. Difference Not specified April 2006 Rs.2,14,001/-
between ST-3 & and
Balance Sheet March 2007
7. Wrong Availment Not applicable April 2006 Rs.3,53,483/-
of CENVAT Credit and
April 2008
Total Rs.3,60,10,374/-
3. The appellant is a part of Anand Group of Companies, which
comprises of 15 companies. It is engaged in the field of
manufacture and sale of automotive parts. The appellant provided
consultancy service exclusively to its group companies only and
received professional fees, internal audit fees and training fees
from its group companies in relation to consultancy services. The
3
ST/58840/2013
appellant had paid service tax on the said amount received under
the category of 'management consultancy service'. The appellant
also maintains transit house/ guest houses situated at Mumbai,
Gurgaon, Parwanoo, Pune and Chennai for the purpose of
providing accommodation to the employees of its group companies
visiting the said places on official visit, i.e. for business work of the
group companies only. According to the policy of the company,
the said transit houses cannot be used for personal use of the
employees. The charges of the said transit house were as per the
pre-determined tariff. For recovery of the transit house charges,
bills were raised by the appellant at the end of the month to the
group companies whose employees had availed the said facility in
that particular month. The income generated through rent
received in relation to the said transit houses was booked by the
appellant under the head of 'transit house income'. As part of the
Anand Group's policy decision, the employees of the group
companies also got transferred to other group companies. In spite
of this inter-company transfer of personnel, they continued to
remain on the rolls of the company where they were recruited.
However, their salary and all other remuneration were paid by the
company they were working for and the same was routed through
the appellant.
4. A show cause notice dated April 20, 2011 was issued to the
appellant for the period from May 01, 2006 to September 30,
2010. The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice and
ultimately, by an order dated April 18, 2013, the Commissioner
confirmed the demand of Rs.3,56,56,891/- towards service tax and
4
ST/58840/2013
Rs.3,53,483/- towards CENVAT credit. Thus, a demand of
Rs.3,60,10,374/- was confirmed with penalty under sections 77
and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 3.
5. The issues, therefore, that arise for consideration in this
appeal are issues at serial nos. 1,2,6 and 7 of the Table contained
in paragraph 2 of this order. It needs to be noted that the
demands in respect of issues at serial nos. 4 and 5 have been
dropped, while with regard to the issue at serial no.3, the amount
with interest has been paid and the appellant does not dispute this
demand.
6. Each of the issues shown at serial nos. 1,2,6 and 7 will now
be considered separately.
Service tax under BSS on the transit house income
7. The appellant owns guest houses at various places and allows
them to be used by employees of group companies while on official
tours. For such use, the appellant charges its group companies and
issues debit notes. Some portion of guest houses are also used for
residence of employees of the appellant, in addition to those of its
group companies. The appellant recovers electricity and
maintenance charges from such employees, which also form part
of transit house income in the books of accounts and according to
the appellant it is not susceptible to service tax as the same would
be service to self. The appellant contends that these submissions,
corroborated by relevant invoices, were made before the
Commissioner in reply to the show cause notice, but there is no
3. the Finance Act
5
ST/58840/2013
advertence to this reply and the demand has been confirmed
without any reasoning.
8. It would be seen that the demand was proposed under
'infrastructural' service under the category of 'support service of
business and commerce' 4, as defined under section 65 (105)(104c)
of the Finance Act. It would, therefore, be appropriate to
reproduce the same:
"Section 65 (104c): Support services of business or
commerce" means services provided in relation to business or
commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers,
telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfilment services,
information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution
and logistics, customer relationship management services,
accounting and processing of transactions, operational or
administrative assistance in any manne, formulation of customer
service and pricing policies, infrastructural support services and
other transaction processing.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, the expression
"infrastructural support services" includes providing office
along with office utilities, lounge, reception with competent
personnel to handle messages, secretarial services, internet
and telecom facilities, pantry and security;"
(emphasis supplied)
9. It needs to be noted that BSS was made taxable under
section 65 (105) (zzzq) of the Finance Act. This section is
reproduced below:
"Section 65 (105)(zzzq): to any person, by any other person, in
relation to support services of business or commerce, in any
manner."
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
provision of housing facility on short term basis is specifically
covered under the scope of 'short-term accommodation services'
as defined in section 65(105)(zzzzw) of the Finance Act and this
service became taxable only from May 01, 2011. The appellant
4. BSS
6
ST/58840/2013
has, accordingly, been paying service tax under the said category
from May 01, 2011 onwards. The contention, therefore, that has
been advanced by Shri B.L. Narasimhan learned counsel for the
appellant is that since the subject activities of the appellant have
been made taxable only from May 01, 2011 under section
65(105)(zzzzw) of the Finance Act, the appellant cannot be
charged to service tax under any other category (such as BSS),
prior to this date. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on
the following decisions:
a. Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi 5;
b. Global Coal & Mining Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner
of Service Tax, Delhi 6;
c. Malviya National Institute of Technology vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Jaipur 7; and
d. Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union
of India 8.
11. This submission advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant has not been accepted by the Commissioner and the
observations in this regard are as follows:
"I find that the fact that the noticee have now got
registered with the Service Tax department under the
new service of Guest House in Act, w.e.f. May 01, 2011,
does not alter the Service Tax liability of the noticee
under the category of Business Support Services as the
activities undertaken by the noticee to the employees
of the group companies were only with respect to their
official visits, therefore, were in the nature of
Infrastructural Support services. In other words, said
transit houses were not merely providing accommodation as
in the case of 'Guest House' services that to for a continuous
period of less than three months but were providing all kind
of facilities such as food etc. and were established with a
purpose to specially promote business of the company/ group
and save cost of the group companies. The services
provided by the noticee were distinguishable as same
were exclusively meant for employees of the group
5. 2020 (11) TMI 437- CESTAT New Delhi
6. 2020 (36) GSTL 77 (Tri.-Del.)
7. 2019 (28) GSTL 472 (Tri.- Del.)
8. 2009 (14) STR 289 (Bom.)
7
ST/58840/2013
companies in furtherance of business and commerce of
the said group companies and not meant for any other
persons or general public as in the case of 'Guest
House' services, therefore, the said services
undertaken by the noticee were correctly classifiable
under "Business Support Services" as nature of said
services were for providing Infrastructural Support in
the course of business of the said group companies
whereas 'Guest House' services are not exclusively
meant for the business persons only but could be used
for any purpose and any person. On the basis of above, I
find that ratio of judgments cited by the noticee are not
applicable as activities undertaken by the noticee were
already covered by the existing entry i.e. Business Support
Services and the fact that they have obtained Service Tax
registration under 'Guest House' services w.e.f May 01,
2011 does not alter the situation as the noticee have obtained
the Service Tax registration on their own volition under 'Guest
House' service and paying Service Tax accordingly. Therefore,
the Service Tax liability of the noticee for the previous period
remains un-altered under the correct category of "Business
Support Services" irrespective of the subsequent voluntary
action of the noticee in obtaining Service Tax registration
under the category of 'Guest House' service."
(emphasis supplied)
12. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant deserves to be accepted. The provision of housing facility
on short-term basis is specifically covered under "short-term
accommodation services", which has been subjected to service tax
w.e.f. May 01, 2011 under section 65(105) (zzzzw) of the Finance
Act. As this service is a new entry and has not been carved out
from any other existing service, it cannot be included under any
other category, including BSS, prior to May 01, 2011.
13. This is what was held by Bombay High Court in Indian
National Shipowners' Association. The Bombay High Court
observed that introduction of a new entry and inclusion of certain
services in that entry would pre-suppose that there was no earlier
entry covering the said services. It was also observed that creation
of the new entry was not by way of amending the earlier entry and
8
ST/58840/2013
it was not carved out of any earlier entry. The relevant portion of
the judgment of the Bombay High Court is reproduced below:-
"37. Entry (zzzzj) is entirely a new entry. Whereas entry
(zzzy) covers services provided to any person in relation to
mining of mineral, oil or gas, services covered by entry
(zzzzj) can be identified by the presence of two characteristics
namely (a) supply of tangible goods including machinery,
equipment and appliances for use, (b) there is no transfer of
right of possession and effective control of such machinery,
equipment and appliances. According to the members of the
1st petitioner, they supply offshore support vessels to carry
out jobs like anchor handling, towing of vessels, supply to rig
or platform, diving support, fire fighting etc. Their marine
construction barges support offshore construction, provide
accommodation, crane support and stoppage area on main
deck or equipment. Their harbour tugs are deployed for
piloting big vessels in and out of the harbour and for
husbanding main fleet. They give vessels on time charter
basis to oil and gas producers to carry out offshore
exploration and production activities. The right of possession
in and effective control of such machinery, equipment and
appliances is not parted with. Therefore, those activities
clearly fall in entry (zzzzj) and the services rendered by the
members of the 1st petitioner have been specifically brought
to the levy of Service Tax only upon the insertion of this new
entry.
38. If the Department's contention is accepted that
would mean that the activities of the members of the
1st petitioner are covered by entry (zzzy) and entry
(zzzzj). Such a result is difficult to comprehend
because entry (zzzzj) is not a specie of what is covered
by entry (zzzy). Introduction of new entry and
inclusion of certain services in that entry would
presuppose that there was no earlier entry covering the
said services. Therefore, prior to introduction of entry
(zzzzj), the services rendered by the members of the
1st petitioner were not taxable. Creation of new entry is
not by way of amending the earlier entry. It is not a carve out
of the earlier entry. Therefore, the services rendered by the
members of the 1st petitioner cannot be brought to tax under
that entry."
(emphasis supplied)
14. This judgment of the Bombay High Court was followed by the
Tribunal in Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd.; Global
Coal & Mining Pvt. Ltd and Malviya National Institute of
Technology.
15. Even otherwise, accommodation or guest house facility does
not form part of infrastructural service and, therefore, cannot be
treated as provision of BSS. This follows from the definition of BSS
9
ST/58840/2013
in section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act and the Explanation
contained therein. BSS means service provided in relation to
business and commerce and includes, amongst others,
infrastructural support services. Services under the Explanation
includes providing office alongwith office utilities, lounge, reception
with competent personnel to handle messages, secretarial
services, internet and telecom facilities, pantry and security.
16. Thus, infrastructural support services includes only the
service specified in the Explanation, which essentially includes
setting up office spaces. Thus, accommodation or guest house
facility will not form part of infrastructural support services and
cannot be treated as provision of BSS.
17. In this connection, reference can be made to the decision of
the Tribunal in Air Liquide North India Pvt. Ltd. vs
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 9 and the observations
are as follows:
"8. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the
appellant engaged in the manufacture and sale of various
types of industrial gases. They have entered into agreement
with various clients for sale of such industrial gases. In
respect of some of the clients they have also entered into
separate agreements to provide certain plant and machinery
or mostly, gas storage facilities along with necessary
accessories. We have perused some of these agreements. In
case of supply of equipments, plant and machinery, the
appellants are entering into of lease agreement and the
consideration is termed as 'lease rental charges'. In most of
the cases, the appellants are engaged in providing gas
storage facility along with connected accessories. The
agreements entered into for putting up these facilities
at the client's premises are co- terminus with sale and
purchase agreement for supply of gas. This makes it clear
that the storage facility is closely linked with sale of gas by
the appellant. In other words, the creation and
maintenance of such facility in the client's premises is
in furtherance of facilitating such sale of gas, by the
appellant and purchase of same for industrial use by
the client. It is a beneficial arrangement for both. In
9. 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 230 (Tri.-Del.)
10
ST/58840/2013
such situation it will not be correct to consider the
amount received towards lease rent/facility fee etc. as
consideration for providing business support to the
client. In Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. 10, the
Tribunal held that providing place within the premises of the
turf club by way of stall or canteen for consideration, is
nothing but hiring or leasing of immovable property and
cannot be considered as business support service.
9. In Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. 11, ,
the Tribunal held providing railway lines inside the port area
for the railways to move the wagons cannot be considered as
providing infrastructural facilities to the railways. It is a
beneficial arrangement for both the parties and there is no
service of business support by one to another.
10. The appellants strongly pleaded that the scope of
infrastructure support as mentioned under tax entry 'business
support service' will not cover the present case. Reliance
was placed on the explanation to state that the nature
of activities which are to be generally considered as
infrastructural support service can be ascertained from
such inclusive definition. These are mainly administrative
and office related support. The type of activities like putting
up and managing gas storage facility in industrial unit are not
fitting into overall scope of the infrastructural support service
as contemplated by the inclusive definition given in the
explanation. We note that though the activities of the
appellant, can be brought under very generic
understanding of infrastructure support, when
examined with statutory scope as per explanation
indicating nature of services which are to be brought
under tax net than it would appear that the present
activity will not get covered under the said tax entry.
We also take note that in legal interpretation, there are
situation where the word 'includes' in certain context be a
word of limitation South Gujarat Roofing Tiles
Manufactures 12. In certain situations the nature of included
items would not only partake of the character of the whole,
but may be construed as clarificatory of the whole. In the
present case even considering the explanation for
infrastructural support service is only defined in an inclusive
way, still it will not be incorrect to hold such inclusive
definition will throw light upon what are all the nature of
services which are sought to be taxed."
(emphasis supplied)
18. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the
Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and
Service Tax, Alwar vs. Air Liquide North India P. Ltd. 13
10. 2 015 (38) S.T.R. 811 (Tri. Mum)
11. 2 012 (27) S.T.R. 171 (Tri. Amd)
12. 1977 (1) SCR 878
13. 2019 (27) GSTL 194(Raj.)
11
ST/58840/2013
19. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the Commissioner was
not justified in confirming the demand on the amount received for
transit house under the category of BSS.
Manpower supply services
20. The impugned order has confirmed the demand of service
tax against the appellant under the category of 'manpower
recruitment and supply agency service' on the ground that the
appellant was supplying manpower to its group companies.
21. According to the appellant, it deputes its employees to the
group companies. In such cases, the group companies reimburse
the salary of the employees to the appellant during the tenure of
the deployment and so it cannot be said that the appellant is
supplying any manpower as the appellant is not 'engaged' in
rendering services of supply of manpower. In this connection,
reliance has been placed on the following decisions:
a. Commr. of Central Excise vs. Computer
Sciences Corpn. India P. Ltd. 14;
b. Lowe's Services India Pvt. Ltd vs.
15
Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North .
22. In Computer Sciences Corporation India P. Ltd., the
Allahabad High Court made the following observations:
"8. In the present case, the Commissioner clearly
missed the requirement that the service which is
provided or to be provided, must be by a manpower
recruitment or supply agency. Moreover, such a
service has to be in relation to the supply of
manpower. The assessee obtained from its group
companies directly or by transfer of the employees, the
services of expatriate employees. The assessee paid the
14. 2015 (37) S.T.R. 62 (All.)
15. 2021(2) TMI 1022-CESTAT Bangalore
12
ST/58840/2013
salaries of the employees in India, deducted tax and
contributed to statutory social security benefits such as
provident fund. The assessee was also required to remit
contributions, which had to be paid towards social security
and other benefits that were payable to the account of the
employees under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction.
There was no basis whatsoever to hold that in such a
transaction, a taxable service involving the recruitment or
supply of manpower was provided by a manpower
recruitment or supply agency. Unless the critical
requirements of clause (k) of Section 65(105) are fulfilled,
the element of taxability would not arise."
(emphasis supplied)
23. In Lowe's Services India, the Tribunal observed:
6.3. Further, after examining the various definitions cited
supra, we find that in order to classify any service under the
manpower recruitment or supply agency service the following
conditions need to be satisfied:
i. The agency must be any person
ii. It must be engaged in providing a specified service
iii. The specified service is recruitment or supply of
manpower
iv. The service can be provided "temporarily or otherwise‟
v. The service may be provided directly or indirectly
vi. The service may be provided in any manner vii. The
service must be provided to any other person
24. After relying upon the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and
the High Court, the Tribunal in Lowe's Services India set aside
the demand raised by the Department under the category of
manpower recruitment.
25. The following decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellant have also taken the same view:
a. Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs & Central
Excise 16;
b. Indian Yamaha Motor Private Limited vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax,
16. 2019 (8) TMI 8- CESTAT New Delhi
13
ST/58840/2013
New Delhi 17;
c. Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of
Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs & Central
Excise 18;
d. Punj Lloyd Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service
Tax, Delhi 19;
e. Commissioner of Serivce Tax vs. Arvind Mills
Ltd. 20; and
f. Spirax Marshall P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Pune-I 21.
26. In view of the factual position stated above and the decisions
referred to above, it has to be held that the appellant is not
engaged in rendering supply of manpower service.
Difference between ST-3 and balance sheet
27. The impugned order has confirmed the demand of service
tax of Rs. 2,14,001/- only on the ground that there is a difference
in value appearing in the ST-3 returns and the balance sheet.
28. The findings recorded by the Commissioner in this regard are
as follows:
"I have gone through the facts of the case and various
submissions made by the noticee in respect of this
demand of Rs. 2,14,001/- and find that the figures
mentioned by the noticee at this stage do not co-relate
with the figures mentioned in their statutory records ,
therefore, the plea taken by the noticee is not acceptable.
In view of the above, I hold that the noticee have failed to
reconcile the figures and justify the difference noticed by
the department in their statutory records and ST-3
Returns for the period under dispute. Accordingly, I
confirm the demand of Rs 2,14,001/- raised by the
department on this issue."
17. 2019 (7) TMI 772- CESTAT New Delhi
18. 2019 (8) TMI 260-CESTAT New Delhi
19. 2019 (22) GSTL 85 (Tri.- Del.)
20. 2014 (35) STR 496 (Guj.)
21. 2016 (44) STR 310 (Tri.- Mumbai) maintained by Supreme Court
of India in 2016 (44) STR J153 (SC)
14
ST/58840/2013
29. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said
demand is not sustainable as the impugned proceedings have
failed to identify the specific category of taxable service under
which such demand has been confirmed and in any case, the
difference has arisen only because the appellant reported wrong
value on cum-tax basis in the ST-3 returns, while it had paid
service tax on the correct value. While calculating the cum-tax
value, the appellant applied the rate of service tax @ 10.20%,
whereas it paid service tax @ 12.24%.
30. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant deserves to be accepted. The appellant had clearly
explained the difference in the values appearing in the Service Tax
Return and the Balance Sheet. The reason stated was that the
appellant had reported wrong value-cum-tax basis in the Service
Tax Return, whereas the appellant paid service tax on the correct
value. These facts were placed before the Adjudicating Authority
with supporting documents but the same have not been
considered. The explanation offered by the appellant was required
to be examined. Thus, for the reason that the category of taxable
service under which the demand was confirmed has not been
specified and for the reason that the appellant has satisfactorily
explained the difference in the tax value, the demand under this
head cannot be sustained.
Wrong availment of credit
31. The impugned order has confirmed the demand of CENVAT
credit for the months of April, 2006 and April, 2008 on the ground
15
ST/58840/2013
that the closing balance as per Service Tax-3 returns in the months
of March, 2006 and March, 2008 was NIL.
32. The findings recorded by the Commissioner in the impugned
order on this issue are as follows:
"I have gone through the facts of the case and various
submissions made by the noticee and find that copies of
the Ledger Accounts etc. produced by the noticee are
mere un-authenticated and un-attested computer
generated print outs and cannot be relied upon to accept
the claim of the noticee that there was some balance of
Cenvat Credit as on 31.03.2006 and also on 30.09.2008
instead of NIL balance shown themselves in the ST-3
Returns. In the absence of any documentary evidence and
any Chartered Accountant Certificate confirming and
certifying the said figures as closing Balance of Cenvat
Credit, the plea of the noticee cannot be considered. In
view of the above, I disallow the Cenvat Credit amounting
to Rs 3,53,483/-( Rs 1,12,182/- and Rs 2,41,301/-) and
confirm the demand of Rs 3,53,483/- in respect of this
issue."
33. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the closing
balance in Service Tax-3 returns was inadvertently shown as NIL in
the months of March, 2006 and March, 2008, while such balance
was existing in the credit ledger of the appellant. The said facts
were duly presented by the appellant before the Adjudicating
Authority along with supporting documents, but the same have not
been adverted to by the Adjudicating Authority. In this connection,
the certificate of the Chartered Accountant was also filed.
34. It is seen that the Commissioner has not examined the
documents that were on record. It would, therefore, be appropriate
to remand the matter to the Commissioner to examine this issue,
after taking into consideration the documents, including the
Chartered Accountant certificates which are at pages 1428 to 1435
and 1470 of the appeal memo.
16
ST/58840/2013
35. It therefore, follows that the order dated April 18, 2013
passed by the Commissioner, except to the extent it has confirmed
the demand of CENVAT credit for the months of April 2006 to April
2008, cannot be sustained and is set aside. So far as the
confirmation of demand of CENVAT credit for the months April
2006 to April 2008 is concerned, the Commissioner shall re-
examine the matter in the light of the observations made above.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Pronounced in Open Court 16.09.2021)
(JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA)
PRESIDENT
(P.ANJANI KUMAR
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Archana/JB
17
ST/58840/2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 58840 OF 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 15/COMMR./PKL/2013 dated 18.04.2013
passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula, Haryana)
M/s. Anand Automotive Ltd ....Appellant
1, Sri Aurobindo Marg,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
Versus
Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi ....Respondent
Service Tax Commissionerate, IAEA House,
17-B, I.P. Estate, M.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110002
APPEARANCE:
Shri B.L. Narasimhan with Ms. Shagun Arora and Shri Kunal Agarwal,
Advocates for the Appellant
Shri A. Thapliyal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: August 09, 2021
Date of Decision: September 16, 2021
ORDER
Order pronounced.
(JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P.V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) JB