Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Amp;Cce(Chennai ... on 18 July, 2019
1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Excise Appeal No. 40652 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 657/2018 (CTA-II) dated 28.12.2018 passed by
the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II): C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Newry
Towers, 2054/1, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040)
M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., : Appellant
Thiruvallur High Road, Madura Nemam Village,
Nemam, Dist. Thiruvallur,
Tamil Nadu - 602 107
VERSUS
The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, : Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, Plot No. 2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 APPEARANCE:
Ms. S. Vishnupriya, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 40953 / 2019 DATE OF HEARING: 18.07.2019 DATE OF DECISION: 18.07.2019 Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Ms. S. Vishnupriya, Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee, submits that the only issue in the case on hand relates to the denial of CENVAT Credit on pest control services availed at the godowns and depots of the appellant.2
1.2 She further submits that the same has been dealt with by this very Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported in 2019 (2) T.M.I. 404 - CESTAT Chennai for the period from January 2011 to December 2015 and therefore, the issue is no more res integra.
2. On the other hand, Shri. L. Nandakumar, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, opposing the contentions of the Ld. Advocate, relies on the findings of the lower authorities.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the various decisions/orders relied on by the Ld. Advocate.
4.1 I find that the very same issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee in the appellant's own case (supra), as submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. The relevant paragraph reads as under :
"5.1 The first issue is with regard to disallowance of credit on pest control services. The appellant has taken the premises on rent outside the factory to store the inputs namely sugar. The pest control services have been availed by the appellant to make these premises pest free. The product stored by the appellant being sugar and is being used as input for aerated beverages which are used for human consumption, it is essential that the premises are to be kept pest free. For this reason, I am of the view that the pest control services availed by the appellant are input services and therefore the same are eligible for credit. The disallowance of credit is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do."
4.2 Ld. AR was unable to distinguish the above ratio and nor did he file any contrary decisions to deviate from the above ratio.3
4.3 Following the above ratio therefore, I am of the view that the denial of credit cannot sustain and consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
4.4 For the same reasons, there is no case made out by the Revenue to sustain the penalty levied and confirmed under Rule 15 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The same is also ordered to be deleted.
5. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P. DINESHA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sdd