Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Delhi-Iii vs M/S.Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd on 22 September, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Excise Appeal No.E/55179/2014 EX. [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.145/CE/DLH/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Delhi-III Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri B.B. Sharma, DR
Present for the Respondent: Shri B.L.Yadav, Consultant
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 22.09.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 54108/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 08.07.2014, wherein cenvat credit denied on various input services in the adjudication order were allowed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The contention of the Revenue in this appeal is that credit on renting service is not admissible to the respondent inasmuch as the said service is in relation to the rent paid for separate premises, having no connectivity with the manufacturing activity of the respondent. Thus, according to the Revenue, since the service has not been used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of respondents final products, cenvat credit on such service is not admissible.
3. Shri B.B. Sharma, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the submissions made in the grounds of appeal. On the other hand, Shri B.L. Yadav, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent is a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts registered with Central Excise Department; that the vehicle manufactured by the respondent are removed to the depot, from where the same are sold to various customers. According to the ld. Consultant, since the service tax paid on the rental service is in relation to the marketing of vehicles, which has the bearing on the manufacturing of motor vehicles, cenvat credit cannot be denied on such taxable service. He further submits that the definition of input service contained in Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the phrase storage up to the place of removal contained therein, made the position clear that cenvat credit is available on the disputed services. To justify his stand that the credit has been rightly allowed in the impugned order, the ld. Consultant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DSCL Sugar vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow reported in 2014 (34) STR 58 (Tri. Delhi) and Lumax Automotive Systems Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-IV reported in 2013 (32) STR 526 (Tri.-Del.).
4. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. I find from the available records that the motor vehicles manufactured by the respondent are sold to its buyer through the Depot situated outside the factory premises. Since the duty paid vehicles were removed to the depot, from where the same were sold to the customers, such activity squarely falls under the definition of input service under the category of storage upto the place of removal, itemised therein. In the above referred cases, the Tribunal has allowed the services availed for the Go-down / Depot by holding that the services have nexus with the ultimate manufacturer of final product.
6. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Operative portion pronounced in the open Court) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 2