Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Mileen Engineers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... on 5 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. ST/274/09 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/53/M-III/2009 dated 04.09.10 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s. Mileen Engineers
:
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III
Respondents
Appearance None for Appellants Shri V.K. Singh, JDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 05.08.10 Date of Decision : 05.08.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants have filed this appeal against the denial of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the input services on CHAs and the telephone installed in the residential premises of the Chief Executive of the appellants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants availed the facility of CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs as well as Service tax paid on the services of CHA for clearance of their import and export consignments and telephone installed in the residence of the executive of the appellants firm. The same were denied by the lower authorities holding that these are not admissible as per CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants are before me.
3. None appeared on behalf of the appellants nor any request for adjournment but on record I find a request has been made by the appellants vide their letter dated 27.07.2007 to decide the case taking into consideration the factual position stated by them and the case laws relied upon by them.
4. On the other hand the learned DR fairly agreed that the services on clearing and forwarding CHAs availed by the appellants are eligible for input service credit as it has been allowed by this Tribunal in several cases and the same which has attained finality, but he submitted that the telephone installed at the residence of the Executive of the Company is not entitled for input service credit as clarified in the Boards Circular No. 59/8/03 dated 22.06.2003.
5 Heard and considered.
6. On careful examination of the submissions made by the appellants and the arguments advanced by the learned DR, I find that from the records, it is nowhere coming out that the telephone installed at the residence of the Executive are being exclusively used for the business purpose. As per the Board Circular No. 59/8/03 dated 22.06.2003 it is clarified that service tax credit is available for the telephone installed only in the business premises. No input service is available on the telephone installed at the residence of the executive of the appellants. Accordingly, as admitted by the learned DR the input service credit on the CHA service is allowed and input service credit on telephone service is denied.
7. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3