Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 15 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Application No. ST/S/2219/12 in Appeal No. ST/638/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 07/COMMR(KAP)/LTU-M/Ex/2012 dated 20.6.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU), Mumbai). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, 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 : Yes 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 Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri Jitu Motwani, Advocate with Ms. Neetika Baghal, Advocate for Appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 15.07.2013 Date of Decision: 15.07.2013 ORDER NO. Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
Appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Original No. 07/COMMR(KAP)/LTU-M/Ex/2012 dated 20.6.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU), Mumbai.
2. The appellant, M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd., is a manufacturer cosmetics and toiletry products and they have manufacturing unit at Mulund, Aurangabad and Baddi. While the units at Mulund and Aurangabad discharge Excise duty liability on the goods manufactured, the Baddi unit is not liable to pay Excise duty and come under the area based exemption available to units in the specified areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The appellant registered themselves as an Input Service Distributor for the various input services to their manufacturing units. The department issued a notice to the appellant alleging that they have distributed Service Tax credit to the extent of Rs.1,39,77,450/- pertaining to their Baddi unit, which was manufacturing exclusively exempted goods and no service tax credit is permissible in respect of the said unit. Accordingly, it was proposed in the notice to recover the same along with interest and also proposing imposition of penalty. The appellant contested the demand and submitted that they have reversed the credit taken in respect of the Baddi unit. However, the adjudicating authority observed that from the statements given by the appellant, he is not in a position to verify the reversal of the credit. Accordingly, he confirmed the Service Tax demand of Rs.1,39,77,450/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they have documentary evidence in support of their claim that they have reversed the credit in respect of the input services availed in respect of the Baddi unit and they have submitted detailed documentary evidence in support of their claim, which indicate the date on credit taken, eligible amount of credit, the credit distributed and undistributed credit, reversal of undistributed credit. The said statement also contains details of the reversal of the credit in respect of the demands made. If these are verified, it can be seen that the appellant had reversed the credit in respect of the ineligible input service tax credit. However, the learned Counsel fairly submits that these documents were not produced before the department. Accordingly, he pleads that the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
4. The learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that the adjudicating authority did not have reconciliation statements and documents pertaining to availment of credit, which have been now produced before the Tribunal. Since these are produced now, the same needs to be verified.
5. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, we are of the view that the issue involved herein relates to verification of the factual details about reversal of credit. The appellants have now produced these details. Hence, the matter should go back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to make submissions and lead evidences before the adjudicating authority about the reversal of the credit in respect of the input services used at the Baddi unit. On such submission, the adjudicating authority shall consider the claim made by the appellant with regard to reversal of credit and thereafter pass a speaking order. All contentions are kept open.
6. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
4