Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Gujarat Polybutenes Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner (Appeals), Central ... on 29 December, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad -ooOoo- Appeal No. : E/11432, 11433/2014 [ Arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-612-13-14 dt 17/01/2014 Passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II ] M/s Gujarat Polybutenes Pvt Ltd - Appellant(s) Vs Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II - Respondent (s)
Represented by Appellant(s) : Shri Anand Nainavati, Advocate Respondent (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative CORAM :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 29/12/2016 ORDER No. A/11950-11951/2016 Per : Dr D.M.Misra,, Heard both sides.
2. These appeals are filed OIA-VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-612-13-14 dt 17/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant availed Cenvat Credit of Rs 32,149/- during 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2011 (Appeal No E/11432/2014) and Rs 4,40,314/- during 1.4.2006 to 31.12.2010 (Appeal No E/11433/2014) on Rent a Cab, C&F, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Repairing and Car Insurance, Money Insurance, Marine Insurance, Office Employees insurance services. Alleging that the said service iare not eligible to credit, show-cause-cum-demand notices were issued to them on 26.4.2011, for recovery of the said credit alongwith proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn rejected the appeal. Hence, the present Appeal.
4. The appellants submits that the aforesaid services have been held as Input Services as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by various judicial pronouncements, namely, Rent a Cab services in the case of Principal Commissioner Vs Essar Oil Ltd 2016 (41)STR 389 (Guj.), C&F service CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. CADILA Health Care Ltd. 2013 (10) STR 3(guj.), Repair of Company Vehicle service CCE,Bangalore Vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd. 2016 (42) STR (Kar.), employees Insurance service CCE, Bangalore-III VS. STANZEN Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 444(Kar.) and vehicle insurance service CCE Vs. CCL Products (i) Ltd. 2009 (16) STR 305 (Trb.), hence, credit on the said services is admissible. The Ld Advocate further submitted that appellant has not recovered the service charges from their employees in providing the said services.
5. The Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the finding of the Ld Commissioner (Appeal).
6. I find that Service Tax paid in relation to Rent a Cab, C&F, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Repairing, and Insurance, Money Insurance, Marine Insurance, Office Employees insurance Services are covered under the scope of Input Services as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as has been held in the aforesaid cases. respectively. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) swami ??
??
??
??
2