Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Itw India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 December, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 27167 / 2013 Appeal(s) Involved: ST/608/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 7/2009 dated 21/05/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals) Hyderabad] ITW INDIA LTD 3RD FLOOR, MERCHANT TOWERS 5, ROAD NO.4, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500034, AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - HYDERABAD-I KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH-500004 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. I.S. Karthikeyan, Adv For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 23/12/2013 Date of Decision: 23/12/2013 CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,61,979/- of duty paid on steel straps availed by the appellant and utilized for payment of service tax on the activity of strapping and packing has been denied for the month of March 2007. Denial has been done on the ground that the invoices in respect of steel straps were in the name of customers and not in the name of the appellant.
2. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the very same issue for a subsequent period had come up before Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) in orders-in-appeal Nos 14-15/2010 dated 30.04.2010 allowed the appeals on the ground that omission was only procedural and further there is no finding to the effect that the steel straps were not utilized for packing.
3. Learned A.R. submits that the reliance on this order is misplaced since credit was denied on the ground that the premises where packing was done was different and not the appellants premises and therefore the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be taken into account for coming to any conclusion in this case.
4. I find from the orders of the lower authorities that invoices in respect of steel straps have been made in the name of job workers/customers who undertook the packing work on behalf of the appellants. The premises to which the goods were sent were of the customers for whom the packing was undertaken. Appellants took credit of duty paid on straps utilized for packing. In fact, I have found several cases wherein the Revenue has been contending that the value of the materials should be included for payment of service tax. Therefore, Revenue cannot dispute that inclusion of value of the straps for the purpose of payment of service tax. Under these circumstances we have to see whether the fact that invoice was not in the name of the appellant would make them ineligible for the credit. According to Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, address of the recipient is not one of the essential requirements for allowing credit. Even in the absence of the name of the recipient of the goods credit can be allowed provided the assessee is able to satisfy the officer that goods have been received/used for providing service or manufacture and duty has been paid. In this case admittedly appellants have been able to show that the straps were received by job worker, were utilized in providing service and excise duty due on the straps has been paid. Under these circumstances. The benefit of Rule 9 has to be given to the appellants treating the same as procedural omission. In view of the above I find that the credit was admissible to the appellant and denial was wrong. Accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellants to the appellants.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) B.S.V. MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Pnr...
3