Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hubergroup India Private Limited vs C.C.E.Cus. & S.Tax, Daman on 14 February, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.11137, 11138 of 2014-SM Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-256 & 257-13-14 dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Daman. Hubergroup India Private Limited .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E.Cus. & S.Tax, Daman .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate for the appellants Present Shri N. Satwani, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 14.2.2017 Final Order No.A/10396-10397/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. These three appeals are filed by the appellant against OIA No. DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-256 & 257-13-14 dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Daman.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on services namely, Air Travel Services, Courier Services and Outdoor Catering services during the relevant period. The demand notices were issued to them for recovery of the credit alleging that the said services do not fall under the scope of definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed and penalty of equal amount imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals.
4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that admissibility of cenvat credit on Air Travel services and Courier Service has been settled in their favour by the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare Limited - 2013 (33) STR 3 (Guj.), Principal Commissioner vs. Essar Oil Limited 2016 (41) STR 389 (Guj.) and an Outdoor Catering Service in the case of CCE Ahmedabad vs. Ferromatik Milacron India Limited - 2011 (21) STR 8 (Guj.).
5. The Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that in the case of Outdoor Catering services though, in principle the issue is settled in favour of the appellant by the Honble Bombay High Court as well as Honble Gujarat High Court, it needs to be verified whether the appellant had collected any charges from their employees for providing the said services.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the admissibility of cenvat credit on Courier services and Air Travel services has been settled by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Limited (supra) and Essar Oil Limited (supra). However, though the admissibility of Outdoor Catering services for providing canteen services to the employees held to be admissible by Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ferromatik Milacron India Limited (supra) and Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Limited - 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.), but the fact of recovery of the said charges from the employees for providing such services, needs to be verified. Accordingly, for the limited purpose of verification of the fact whether the appellant had collected any charges from their employees in providing Canteen Service, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority.
7. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/ Appeal No.E/11137, 11138/2014-SM 1