Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Klj Polymers & Chemicals Limited Unit Ii vs C.C.E.& Cus., Vapi on 28 April, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.14033 of 2013 Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.VAP- EXCUS-000-APP-311-13-14 dated 16.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vapi. KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Limited Unit II .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E.& Cus., Vapi .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present V. Kansara, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri A. Mishra, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 28.4.2017 Final Order No.10839/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. VAP- EXCUS-000-APP-311-13-14 dated 16.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vapi. The CENVAT credit has been denied on various services namely, Chartered Accountant services, Consulting Engineer Service (Drawing & Design Charges), Exim/DGFT Consultant service, Fumigation service, insurance service, Manpower Recruitment service, C & F Agent services, alleging that these services did not satisfy the definition of input service prescribed under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004;
2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that each of the said services is held to be admissible to credit being input service as held by the Tribunal in the following cases:
(a) C.C.E Vs. DRP Malleables Pvt. Limited- 2014 (33) STR 521 (T); (b) Castrol India Limited vs. C.C.E. 2013 (30) STR 214 (Tri-Ahmd.); (c) C.C.E. Vs. Ahmedabad Strips Pvt. Limited 2014 (33) ELT 291 (Tri-Ahmd.); (d) Venus wire Industries Pvt. Limited vs. C.C.E. 2014 (36) STR 475 (T); (e) Rotork Control (India) Pvt. Limited -2010 (20) STR 684 (T); and (f) Sundaram Clayton Limited vs. C.C.E. 2016 (42) STR 741 (T).
3. On the issue of denial of credit of service tax paid on the invoice of M/s Nissa Associates , ld. Advocate submits that the same was disallowed on the ground of non-production of relevant document evidencing payment of service tax. He produced the original copy of the tax invoice in support of the fact that the service tax was paid against the said invoice and credit was accordingly availed by the Appellant.
4. Ld. A.R. for Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I find that the services on which credit was availed has been held to be input services in the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal. Also, I find from the invoice of M/s Nissa Associates enclosed with the Apppeal paper book that it reflects the amount of service tax paid against the services received by the Appellant. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/ E/14033/2013-SM 1