Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Golden Tobacco Ltd vs Cce Mumbai I on 31 August, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/1910/12
IN APPEAL NO. E/1249/12
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB (28)/MV/2012 dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd.
Appellant
Versus
CCE Mumbai I
Respondent
Appearance Shri Vinay N. Ansurkar, Advocate for Appellant Shri D.D. Joshi, Supdt (A.R.) for Respondents CORAM:
Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 31.08.2012 Date of Decision : 31.08.2012 ORDER NO.
Per P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB (28)/MV/2012 dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. The appellant M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd. are manufacturers of cigarette and availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services under 64 invoices and credit availed is in respect of 14 categorizes of services. The services are certification of the factory work, payment made to advocates for legal services related to manufacturing activities, repair and maintenance of the factory, audit and accounting of the factory, packaging services for export purposes, advertisement expenses, quality upgradation and so on. The department was of the view that the appellant is not entitled for CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on the services and issued a show-cause notice dated 06.04.2011 in respect of CENVAT credit of Rs.1,51,611/- availed in March, 2010. The only allegation in the show is that the services on which credit has been availed are not input service as defined in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated by the original authority vide order dated 09.11.2011 but there is no discussion made in the said order as to how the services have no nexus with the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. On the contrary the appellant has categorized the services received and also explained the nexus between the service received and the manufacturing activity undertaken. There is no rebuttal of the claims of the appellant by the original authority. The original authority merely confirmed the demand mentioned in the show-cause notice along with interest thereon and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who, without discussing the nature of the services and their nexus with the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant, mechanically dismissed the appeal and hence the appellant is before me.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Honble High Court of Bombay, in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., - 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.) has held that so long as there is a nexus with the business of manufacturing of final products, the service availed is an eligible for input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In their submission before the lower authorities, they have clearly explained the nature of services received and its nexus with the manufacturing activity. From these submissions, it is very clear that the services availed are integrally connected with the manufacturing activity and hence they are rightly entitled for the credit.
4. The learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. As the issue lies in the narrow compass, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage itself. Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged, I take up the appeal for consideration.
6. From the submissions made by the appellant, the services on which credit has been availed relate to audit and accounting services, repair and maintenance services, packaging service, legal services etc. All these services have nexus and are integrally connected with the business of manufacturing and therefore, they are all eligible input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) applies to the facts of this case.
7. In view of the above, I allow the appeal with consequential relief if any. The stay application is also disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) nsk 4