Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Delhi-Iii vs M/S Exide Industries Ltd on 7 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 7.5.2014
No. E/COD/51687/2014, E/Stay/51686/2014 and E/51404/2014-EX(SM)
AND
E/COD/51689/2014, E/Stay/51688/2014 and E/51405/2014-EX(SM)
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 610 & 618/SVS/GGN/2013 dated 8.11.2013 & 22.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III)
For Approval & signature :
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would 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 of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
CCE, Delhi-III Appellant
Vs.
M/s Exide Industries Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R. - for the appellant Shri S.C. Kamra, Advocate - for the respondent CORAM:Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.52066-52067/2014 Per Archana Wadhwa :
The delay of six days in filing both the appeals is condoned and COD allowed.
2. Further the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is non-executable and accordingly stay petitions are rejected.
3. As the issues are covered, I proceed to decide the appeals also. Accordingly, I have heard Shri S.C. Kamra, ld. Advocate for the respondent and Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. D.R. for the Revenue.
4. The issue involved in the first appeal is as to whether the respondent is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the construction activities of the factory and its parts, prior to 1.4.2011. The issue is settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Reference can be made to the following decisions :
(1) Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Calicut 2012 (28) STR 415 (Tri.-Bang.) (2) CCE & ST (LTU) Vs. Lupin Ltd. 2012 (285) ELT 221 (Tri.-Mumbai). (3) Madhusudan Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III 2011 (23) STR 277 (Tri.-Del.) (4) Suzuki Motorcycle (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon 2011 (267) ELT 216 (Tri.-Del.).
5. Inasmuch as the issue is decided, I find no merits in the Revenues appeal.
6. The issue involved in the second appeal relates to availability of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on repair and maintenance of the building/plant/road etc. I find that the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) specifically includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repair of a factory. The said definition was amended with effect from 1.4.2011 wherein construction of the factory was excluded. As there is no exclusion in respect of the services relatable to renovation or repair, I find no reasons to hold that such services were not cenvatable. Accordingly, the Revenues appeal on the said ground is also not acceptable.
7. In view of the above, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM 2